UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 1167/2026

—·EP3401335 +1 more: COMPOSITION COMPRISING ANTIBODY THAT BINDS TO DOMAIN II OF HER2 AND ACIDIC VARIANTS THEREOF

Case details
Status
—
Action
Other
Category
Other Procedural
Parties
Claimants
Reps: O.v. Lamme (Simmons & Simmons); M.j. Timmerman (Simmons & Simmons)
Respondents
Reps: Rutger Kleemans (Freshfields); Nerissa Teeuwen (Freshfields); Judith Krens (Pinsent Masons Netherlands LLP); Vural Ergisi (Pinsent Masons Netherlands LLP); Alasdhair McDonald (Pinsent Masons Netherlands LLP); Emily Flood (Pinsent Masons Netherlands LLP)
Division
—
Judges
Technology
Measurement & Testing
Language
—
First decided
May 4, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-04
    Procedural onlymotionName.otherAccess To Case

    The Judge-Rapporteur issued this order under R.353 RoP to correct a clerical mistake in an earlier R.262.1.(b) RoP order issued the same day, in which a representative of Genentech & Roche was wrongly named. A new corrected R.262.1.(b) order was to be issued to replace the erroneous one.

    Legal issues:Correction of clerical mistake under R.353 RoP
  • 2026-05-04
    Procedural onlymotionName.otherAccess To Case

    The Judge-Rapporteur partially granted a third-party law firm's request for public access to written pleadings under R. 262.1(b) RoP, limiting access to redacted versions of the applications for the underlying evidence-preservation actions, the applications for review, and the parties' written comments leading to the review decisions. Access to all other requested documents was denied on grounds of the general interest of justice and integrity of proceedings, as the underlying actions (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and UPC_CFI_408/2025) had been withdrawn without proceedings on the merits being initiated. The order also directed the sub-registry to correct document classification codes and granted leave to appeal with suspensive effect.

    Legal issues:Public access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoPBalancing of transparency against confidentiality and integrity of proceedings under Art. 45 UPCAScope of access rights when underlying evidence-preservation proceedings were withdrawn without merits proceedingsWhether a third-party law firm's professional development interest constitutes sufficient reasoning for an access requestLimitation of public access for orders to preserve evidence/inspection where no proceedings on the merits were initiatedEEO (External Eyes Only) confidentiality regime and its interaction with third-party access rightsRequirement for a 'reasoned request' under R. 262.1(b) RoP as interpreted by UPC_CoA_404/2023 (Ocado v Autostore)
Documents
  • R.353_UPC_CFI_1167_2026_Signed.pdf2026-05-04EN
  • R.262_1_b_UPC_CFI_1167_2026_II_Signed.pdf2026-05-04EN
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Access should be limited to redacted submissions leading to the Orders and Review Decisions given the nature of evidence-preservation proceedings and the interest of justice/integrity

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 45 UPCA; R. 262.1(b) RoP; integrity of proceedings

  • Allowing access to information subject to an EEO-regime, for which a request for destruction/return was pending but not adjudicated because the actions were withdrawn, would contravene the general interest of justice

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 45 UPCA

  • Redacted versions of specified documents (applications for the Actions, applications for review, and written comments) should be made accessible to support better understanding of the review decisions

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262.1(b) RoP; Art. 10 and 45 UPCA; UPC_CoA_404/2023
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Full dismissal of the access request in its entirety

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262.1(b) RoP; Art. 45 UPCA

  • Access to all documents including exhibits, seized materials, bailiff reports, confidential information subject to R. 262A RoP orders, administrative documents, and documents filed after the review stage

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 262.1(b) RoP

  • Request should be denied as insufficiently specific (documents merely highlighted in yellow across 8 pages without categorical linkage to reasons)

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262.1(b) RoP; Ocado v Autostore §44

  • Access to granted documents should be stayed for 14 days to allow GENENTECH & ROCHE to submit further confidentiality requests under R. 262.2 RoP

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262.2 RoP