# News Detail Share now [](https://www.linkedin.com/uas/login?session_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2FshareArticle%3Fmini%3Dtrue%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.hoyngrokhmonegier.com%2Ffr%2Factualites%2Fdetail%2Fcourt-of-appeal-specifies-requirements-for-public-access-to-the-register%26title%3DCourt%20of%20Appeal%20specifies%20requirements%20for%20public%20access%20to%20the%20register%26summary%3D "Linkedin") # Court of Appeal specifies requirements for public access to the register 08 avril 2026 Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hot Topic When defending clients before the Unified Patent Court, the question regularly arises as to whether, and under what conditions the register may be accessed to gain information about parallel cases. Access to case files from parallel proceedings is available to a much greater extent before the Unified Patent Court than in some national legal systems. This is because various provisions in the UPCA and the Rules of Procedure ensure transparency. R. 262 RoP UPC concerns the public access to the register. Here, a distinction must be made between access to court decisions and orders (R. 262.1(a) RoP UPC), which “shall be published” according to the rules, and written pleadings and evidence, which, pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP UPC, are only to be made publicly available upon a reasoned request to the Registrar. The decision is taken by the judge rapporteur. Written pleadings and evidence in particular can be of interest in patent litigation. For example, if a client is possibly facing a lawsuit from a competitor or a non-practicing entity and the likely claimant has already targeted other competitors, written pleadings and evidence from parallel cases can provide valuable information for the defence. The request to gain access to written pleadings and evidence necessitates a weighing of the public interest against the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA. According to Art. 45 UPCA, the proceedings shall be open to the public unless the Court decides to make them confidential, to the extent necessary, in the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons, or in the general interest of justice or public order. In any case, confidentiality must be maintained. The Court of Appeal of the UPC has now had the opportunity to clarify the requirements for a request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The law firm Gowling WLG had filed motions for access to the register in the cases of Sumi Agro v. Syngenta (UPC\_CoA\_523/2024) and Boehringer v. Zentiva (UPC\_CoA\_446/2025 and 520/2025). The Court mainly answered two questions. First, the Court had to determine whether an application for access to the register filed with the Court of Appeal could also grant access to the records of the Court of First Instance. Second, the Court considered how precisely the request must be worded. Specifically, the issue was whether a general reference to all evidence, combined with a qualification (“in particular”), is permissible. **Facts of the cases** Gowling requested access to two files from the register of the Court of Appeal. The first case was Syngenta v Sumi Agro. In this case, Syngenta requested an injunction against Sumi Agro's herbicide “Kagura” for alleged infringement of European Patent 2152073. The second case was Boehringer v Zentiva. In this case, Boehringer applied for provisional measures against Zentiva concerning European Patent 1830843 for the use of nintedanib in treating fibrotic diseases. Boehringer claimed imminent infringement due to a notice from the Portuguese authorities regarding the release of a nintedanib-based drug by Zentiva. Gowling requested access to the appeal files. It claimed a general interest in the documents. Interestingly, Gowling admitted that the matter had no connection to pending or upcoming proceedings in which Gowling is acting as counsel. During the time of the request, the proceedings in the case were already concluded. Among others, Gowling requested documents that were filed in the first instance but not re-filed in the appeal proceedings. Gowling especially requested “all exhibits, in particular exhibits evidencing the threat of infringement or actual infringement; exhibits relevant to the balance of interest”. Decisions of the Court of Appeal The most significant new finding from the decisions concerns the question of whether a request for access to the register filed with the Court of Appeal also grants access to the file of the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal ruled that this was not the case. In addition, the Court addressed the question of whether Gowling’s request was sufficiently specific. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gowling can only gain access to documents, which were filed with the register of the Court of Appeal. This covers documents which were relaunched with the Court of Appeal, even if there was no obligation to do so, since, according to R. 222.1 RoP UPC, the Court of Appeal consults the file of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal argued with the Statute of the Unified Patent Court (UPCS) and the Rules governing the Registry of the Unified Patent Court (Reg.R). The statutes make a clear distinction between the register kept by the Registrar (Art. 23 UPCS) and the sub-registries kept by the Deputy-Registrar (Art. 25 UPCS). Only the Deputy-Registrar is responsible for keeping records of cases before the Court of First Instance (Art. 25.3 (b) UPCS). According to this distinction, the Deputy-Registrar makes all entries in the case files of proceedings brought before the Court of First Instance. Furthermore, Rule 262.1(b) states that the Judge Rapporteur makes the decision, as they are familiar with the case. Therefore, the decision to grant access to the files of the Court of First Instance should also be made by the Judge Rapporteur there. Gowling acted accordingly and launched separate requests with the Courts of First Instance (s. LD Munich, UPC\_CFI\_284/2026, order of 4 March 2026 and LD Lisbon, UPC\_CFI\_282/2026, order of 6 March 2026). In their orders, the Courts concur with the Court of Appeal. For practical purposes, the Court's decision regarding the exhibits is especially relevant. The Court ruled that this request was inadmissible since it was ambiguous. According to the Court of Appeal, the request refers to all exhibits, on the one hand, and to some exhibits, on the other hand, selected according to the criteria of whether they concern infringement. The request for written pleadings and evidence must be specified to the greatest extent possible. The Court stated that it could not be made in terms which would require the Court to search and select documents based on relevance criteria set up by the requesting party. The general interest of Gowling in gaining access to the files was sufficient, since the proceedings were already closed and therefore the interest of the public in gaining access to the register generally outweighs the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA. This is not surprising, since various divisions of the UPC have ruled before, that there was no special interest necessary to access the case files, after the proceedings have come to an end. The case law is very well aligned with the purpose of R. 262.1 RoP UPC, which wants to grant wide access to the case files to ensure transparent proceedings. Practical considerations The Court of Appeal made clear that written pleadings and evidence can only be requested at the division where they were filed. This means that litigators have to file separate requests with the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the request needs to be sufficiently specified. It is therefore not advisable to make a general inquiry that refers to all pieces of evidence, but at the same time focuses specifically on certain pieces of evidence. To ensure that the request meets the criteria, it may make sense to launch two separate requests (at each of the separate instances). A first request would grant access to the written pleadings. With a second request, the evidence cited in the filings may be accessed. This would have the benefit that the evidence could be named as specifically as possible, citing the information out of the written pleadings. The question remains whether the required evidence would be sufficiently specified if the applicant simply requests all evidence launched with the register. This seems at least doubtful, since the request must be specified to the greatest extent possible, as the Court of Appeal phrases it. Furthermore, the Court seems to apply a strict interpretation of the specification criteria. **Article by** [**Thomas Pfeffermann**](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/fr/our-team/legal-experts/thomas-pfeffermann)