LD Munich, October 2, 2024, Substantive Order, UPC_CFI_153/2024

The court, referencing Rule 313 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP), affirmed that a patent pool administrator possesses a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of such a lawsuit. 

This interest stems from the administrator’s authority to negotiate licenses for the pooled patent, collect royalties, and potentially face claims from pool members based on the litigation’s result. The court recognized that a judgment impacting the validity or infringement of the pooled patent directly affects the administrator’s legal standing and ability to perform its duties.

The court recognized that a judgment in the lawsuit could impact the administrator’s legal standing and potentially expose it to claims from pool members.

The Defendants argued that allowing intervention could lead to the sharing of confidential information between Access Advance and NEC, potentially violating Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by enabling anti-competitive coordination.

However, the court rejected this argument: While addressing Article 101 TFEU, the court clarified that the act of intervention itself does not automatically qualify as an anti-competitive agreement or concerted practice.

The court emphasized that the parties maintain control over the specific information they disclose during the proceedings. The court also highlighted the pro-competitive aspect of transparency in SEP licensing, a principle recognized by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Intervention Granted: Access Advance’s application to intervene was granted, recognizing its legal interest in the case.

Restricted Access to Confidential Information: To address confidentiality and potential antitrust concerns, the court imposed restrictions on Access Advance’s access to confidential information. Specifically, Access Advance was denied access to information pertaining to bilateral licensing discussions between NEC and TCL. Access was granted to other confidential information, but only for specific individuals and under strict confidentiality obligations.

1. In principle, a patent pool administrator has a legal interest in the outcome of proceedings within the meaning of Rule 313 RoP.
2. Admission of the intervention is not precluded by the fact that it does not prevent an violation of Article 101 TFEU, since the applicant and a party have the possibility to exchange sensitive information under competition law in their written submissions. Allowing an intervention as such does not constitute a violation of Art. 101 TFEU.
3. By admitting the intervention, the applicant becomes a party to the proceedings and is to be treated as a party in accordance with Rule 315(4) RoP. Since it must accept the proceedings at this stage, it must be allowed access to the file in order to be able to conduct the proceedings properly.
4. If the court has already classified certain information as confidential and granted only limited access to the party on whose side the intervener is joining pursuant to Rule 262a RoP, the intervener cannot be granted unlimited access to this information.