Key takeaways
The nature of proceedings may justify restricting public access under Art. 45 UPCA, even though R. 262.1(b) RoP does not explicitly differentiate by proceeding type
Evidence preservation and inspection proceedings create a procedural and confidential playing field balancing fundamental rights of the parties. This playing field must be maintained even after proceedings end without proceedings on the merits being initiated, in the general interest of justice and the integrity of proceedings.
In evidence preservation proceedings without subsequent proceedings on the merits, public access may be limited to redacted submissions leading to the orders and review decisions (R. 262.1(b) RoP, R. 198.1 RoP)
Where orders granting measures to preserve evidence/for inspection are revoked or otherwise ceased to have effect because no proceedings on the merits are initiated, the revocation/ceasing influences the rights to use this information as well as the rights of third parties seeking access to the documents gathered after execution of the orders. However, the limitation is not absolute: the public retains a legitimate interest in accessing the reasoning behind the Court’s decisions to grant or deny evidence preservation applications, which may outweigh the other interests at stake.
Third-party access to information subject to pending but unadjudicated destruction requests contravenes the general interest of justice (Art. 45 UPCA)
The defendants had filed requests for destruction and return of seized documents, which were not adjudicated because the actions were withdrawn. The Court held it cannot be required to hypothetically adjudicate on such withdrawn requests to determine whether third-party access should be allowed.
Specifiying requirements for R. 262.1(b) RoP access requests remain meaningful but may be applied pragmatically
Highlighting several documents for which access is requested without linking them to specific reasons was held formally insufficient. At minimum, a categorical approach grouping document types with specific reasons is expected. However, the objection was pragmatically dismissed as the Court had already limited access to a specific category of documents for which the reasons listed by the Applicant (better understanding of the decisions rendered; developement of interest as UPC practitioners and professional development as UPC practitioner and broader understanding of UPC practice and procedure) are applicable.
No additional confidentiality safeguards required where redacted versions were already permitted outside the EEO confidentiality circle (R. 262.2 RoP)
The request for a 14-day period to review documents and submit further confidentiality requests was rejected. Conditional confidentiality orders had already been issued, access to redacted versions was already permitted outside the EEO circle, and no specific reasons were provided why further review of already-redacted documents was necessary.
Leave to appeal with suspensive effect granted
The effects of the order are suspended until the expiration of the appeal deadline or until the end of the appeal proceedings.
Division
Local Divsion Brussels
UPC number
UPC_CFI_1167/2026
Type of proceedings
Application for public access to written pleadings and evidence (R. 262.1(b) RoP)
Parties
Applicant: Simmons & Simmons LLP
vs.
Respondents (Claimants in original proceedings): Genentech Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
Respondents (Defendants in original proceedings): Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon
Patent(s)
EP 3 401 335 B1
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 262.1(a) RoP, R. 262.1(b) RoP, R. 262.2 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 194.5 RoP, R. 196.1 RoP, R. 197.4 RoP, R. 198.1 RoP, R. 199.1 RoP
Art. 45 UPCA, Art. 58 UPCA
