Key takeaways
Access to unredacted documents granted despite confidentiality request of the Claimant on the basis of R. 262.2 RoP
The Court granted the Applicant access to unredacted documents even though the Claimant argued that the information contained therein was confidential and that disclosure could cause commercial harm. The Court based its decision on Rule 262.6 RoP, finding that the Claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to support its confidentiality request. The Court emphasized that mere assertions of potential harm are not enough to justify restricting public access to court documents.
Burden of proof lies with the party seeking confidentiality
The Court clarified that while the applicant bears the initial burden of justifying its request for access (Rules 262.3 and 262.4 RoP), the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking confidentiality to substantiate its request and provide concrete evidence. This principle, drawing an analogy to UPC_CoA_217/2024 concerning security for costs, highlights the proactive role required of parties seeking to maintain confidentiality.
Division
Central Division (Section Munich)
UPC number
UPC 75/2023
Type of proceedings
Rule 262.3 RoP request
Parties
Applicant Seeking Access: Mathys & Squire LLP
Claimant Resisting Access: Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Defendants: Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
Patent(s)
EP3056563
Body of legislation / Rules
Rules 262.2, 262.3, 262.6 RoP
