UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 886/2025

·EP4201327: FLUID DELIVERY DEVICE WITH TRANSCUTANEOUS ACCESS TOOL, INSERTION MECHANISM AND BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING FOR USE THEREWITH

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Verfahrensart
Verfahrensantrag
Kategorie
Akteneinsicht (RoP262)
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Julia Nguyen (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Marc Grunwald (Peterreins Schley); Frank Peterreins (Peterreins Schley); Mirko Weinert (Hoyng Rokh Monegier)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Packaging & Conveying
Sprache
Erste Entscheidung
22. Dez. 2025
Entscheidungen
  • 2025-12-22
    Application RoP262.1 (b)

    The Court of Appeal granted Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP's application for access to written pleadings (Statement of Appeal and Statement of Response) filed in UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Insulet v. EOFlow), to the extent that redacted versions were available. The Court affirmed that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public under R. 262.1(b) RoP and does not need a bona fide third party behind the application. Commercial interest in understanding UPC decisions does not preclude access.

    Rechtsfragen:Public access to register (R. 262.1(b) RoP)Standing of law firms as members of the publicRedacted access to pleadings
Dokumente
  • Final%20decision%20Herbert%20Smith%20Freehills%20v%20Insulet%20and%20EOFLOW.pdf2025-12-22ENGLISH