UPC CoA 404/2023

At the UPC: Ocado Innovation Limited (3 cases)·AutoStore Group (3 cases)

• 2024-04-10
  Public

  Summary: Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 10 April 2024 concerning a request by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Ocado v. Autostore proceedings. The CoA ruled on the composition of its panel (no technically qualified judges required for purely non-technical matters under Art. 9(1) UPCA), on the standard for public access requests (balancing public interest, confidentiality and personal data protection), and distinguished R. 262.1(b) requests from R. 262.3 applications. The order deals with procedural matters of public register access; no substantive patent ruling was made.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Public access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP
  • Panel composition for non-technical matters under Art. 9(1) UPCA
  • Balancing public interest against confidentiality and personal data under Art. 45 UPCA
• 2024-02-08
  Appeal RoP220.2Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that a member of the public who requests access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP must be represented before the UPC, as such a person is in an adversarial situation that requires representation. The unrepresented respondent's Statement of Response was disregarded, and the respondent was given time to remedy the lack of representation.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Public access to the register (R. 262.1(b) RoP)
  • Representation requirement for members of the public (R. 8.1 RoP)
  • Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA - who must be represented
  • Adversarial nature of access-to-register proceedings
• 2024-01-10
  Application RoP262.1 (b)Public

  Summary: Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 refusing two applications to intervene in the appeal by Ocado against the public register access order. Mathys & Squire LLP and Bristows (Ireland) LLP applied to intervene, arguing they had parallel pending R. 262 applications before the Central Division that raised the same legal issues. The CoA rejected both applications as inadmissible for lack of legal interest in the result of the appeal: a party applicant whose separate R. 262 application is stayed pending the appeal's outcome does not have a sufficient legal interest under the UPC intervention rules, as the outcome of the appeal would not directly and necessarily affect their own applications.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Application to intervene – admissibility
  • Legal interest in result of appeal
  • Public access to register under R. 262.1(b) RoP
• 2023-12-11
  Appeal RoP220.2Public

  Summary: Case management order from the Court of Appeal dated 11 December 2023 in Ocado v. Autostore appeal concerning access to the statement of claim by a third party (GDPR-redacted respondent). The order corrects a CMS error incorrectly designating the Autostore companies as respondents (the respondent is the individual third party applicant). The CoA notes Ocado's submission that four defendants were never served and intends to address this later. The order invites parties to comment on whether R. 8 RoP (representation requirement) applies to the individual respondent who represents himself.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Case management
  • Public access to register under R. 262.1(b) RoP
  • Representation requirement under R. 8 RoP
  • CMS designation corrections

• Case%20584498%20Procedural%20order%20December%202023%20GDPR_Redacted.pdf2023-12-11EN
• Case%20584498%20order%20on%20intervention%2010%20January%202024%20final_Redacted.pdf2024-01-10EN
• Order%20on%20representation%208%20February%202024%20signed_Redacted.pdf2024-02-08EN
• CA6099480F08111F4E2F898795DC8B8D_en.pdf2024-04-10EN