UPC CoA 886/2025

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

Case details: Status
—
Action
Procedural application
Category
Document Access (RoP262)
Parties: Claimants
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (applicant)
Reps: Julia Nguyen (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP)
Respondents
Insulet Corporation
EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Reps: Marc Grunwald (Peterreins Schley); Frank Peterreins (Peterreins Schley); Mirko Weinert (Hoyng Rokh Monegier)
Division: Court of Appeal
Judges: Patricia Rombach · Legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
Technology: Packaging & Conveying
Language: —
First decided: Dec 22, 2025

Decisions

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.
Legal issues:Public access to register (R. 262.1(b) RoP)Standing of law firms as members of the publicRedacted access to pleadings

Documents

Final%20decision%20Herbert%20Smith%20Freehills%20v%20Insulet%20and%20EOFLOW.pdf2025-12-22ENGLISH