Author: Maria Grünwald

  • LD Düsseldorf, July 27, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024

    An applicant’s predominantly personal interest in access to the register may result in strict confidentiality obligations under Rule 262.2 RoP: When deciding on a confidentiality request under Rule 262.2 RoP, the Court may take into account that the applicant has a predominantly personal interest in accessing the register. As a result, the Court may apply…

  • LD Brussels, July 23, 2026, Decision on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_2192/2026

    Public access during ongoing proceedings requires a specific interest: Granting access to a case file is the general rule and restricting access is the exception (Sec. 7). However, where proceedings are still ongoing, public access to the register requires a “more specific” or “direct legitimate” interest of the applicant to override the interest in protecting…

  • LD Düsseldorf, July 24, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024

    Admissibility of public access requests under Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires a specific application: A member of the public must submit a reasoned request explaining the purpose of the requested access and specify the documents and evidence sought as precisely as possible (Sec. 15). In this regard it is sufficient that applicant wants to better undestand…

  • LD Paris, July 29, 2026, Order on subsequent request to amend the patent and on late submissions, UPC_CFI_530/2025

    A subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP is only admissible under exceptional and cumulative circumstances: The claimant must demonstrate that the amendment could not have been filed earlier with reasonable diligence, and that it does not unreasonably hinder the defendant(s) in conducting the proceedings. Both conditions must be met cumulatively (see…

  • LD Milan, July 30, 2026, Order on Cost Security, UPC_CFI_2216/2025, UPC_CFI_1829/2026

    Minimum share capital and microenterprise structure are per se not sufficient to justify security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP: The Court held that (i) claimant’s minimum share capital of EUR 19,700 and (ii) its microenterprise structure were in themselves insufficient circumstances to assess a company’s financial soundness. A relatively modest…