2026-07-24 - LD Düsseldorf - Dolby et al. v. Optoma et al. - App_11638/2025

The Düsseldorf Local Division (Thomas, judge-rapporteur) partially granted a member of the public access to the Statement of Claim in infringement proceedings that had been closed in September 2024 by an order allowing the claimant's withdrawal. Applying the Court of Appeal's line on R. 262.1(b) RoP, the Court held that a reasoned request must not only identify the pleadings and evidence sought but also state its purpose and explain why access to those documents is necessary for that purpose; a bare request for 'access to the file' extending to the annexes is inadmissible from the outset, because the Court cannot be required to search the file and select documents according to relevance criteria set by the requesting party. On the merits, once first-instance proceedings have been closed the public ordinarily has an interest in access that outweighs the Art. 45 UPCA interests, and no more specific interest in the subject matter need then be shown; the claimant's objections failed, as the parallel proceedings it invoked had themselves been closed at first instance and are in any event irrelevant on the Court of Appeal's case law. Since no party had made a R. 262.2 RoP confidentiality request, only personal data fell to be redacted, and an implied request would have failed: the assertion that the claimant had spent substantial time and money establishing whether the patent is infringed by implementation of the standard describes ordinary case-preparation effort and is not in itself a ground for treating information as confidential. The scope of access was nevertheless limited by the applicant's own narrow stated purpose, so access was confined to the redacted extract of the Statement of Claim.