2023-09-21 - CD Munich - ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v. Healios K.K et al. - UPC_CFI_75/2023

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_75/2023
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
Art:
Order
Parteien:
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v. HEALIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY

Kernaussage: Rule 262.

2023-09-21 - CD Munich - ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v. Healios K.K et al. - UPC_CFI_75/2023
🏛️Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section• Order
📅2023-09-21
🔢UPC_CFI_75/2023
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
Mark DIDMON
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Healios K.K
Riken
Osaka University
James NICHOLLS
📋ORD_552745/2023
⚖️Revocation Action
🌐English

Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires a concrete and verifiable, legitimate reason for making available written pleadings and evidence upon a request by a member of the public. To be informed of the proceedings before the Unified Patent Court for the purposes of education and training is not a legitimate reason as required by Rule 262.1(b) RoP. It is also insufficiently concrete and verifiable. No legal basis to give access to letter for service.

notable
Early CD Munich order establishing the interpretive framework for public-access requests to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The Court held that Rule 262.1(b) requires a concrete, verifiable, legitimate reason — not "any (fictitious) reason" — relying on the textual distinction between Rule 262.1(a) (decisions/orders: automatic publication) and Rule 262.1(b) (pleadings/evidence: only on reasoned request), the drafting history of the 18th draft RoP (switch from automatic to application-based access), and the need to protect party and third-party interests as reflected in Art. 58 UPCA. "Education and training" was held not to be a legitimate reason — it is abstract, unverifiable, and can be served by reading published decisions and orders under Rule 262.1(a). Separately, the Letter for Service was held to fall outside "written pleadings or evidence" in Rule 262.1(b), so there was no legal basis to disclose it regardless of any reason. Leave to appeal granted for a consistent interpretation.
Stichwörter
Rule 262.1(b) RoP request (rejected). Legitimate reason for access (no). No legal basis for access to letter for service.

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren