Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (applicant) in Insulet v EOFLow (CoA, 22 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal, sitting alone, grants Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP access to Insulet Corporation’s Statement of Appeal and to a redacted version of EOFLow Co., Ltd.’s Statement of Response in appeal UPC_CoA_768/2024 (EP 4 201 327), decided by an order of 30 April 2025 on appeal from an order of the Milan Central Division. Three days after access was refused to a database publisher in Sumi Agro v Syngenta, the Court confirms that a law firm may be a member of the public within Rule 262.1(b) RoP, even where its request has a commercial dimension.

Question

Does a law firm seeking to understand a decision in order to advise its clients better have a sufficient interest in access to the pleadings, with no identified third party behind its request?

Decision

A law firm may be a member of the public within Rule 262.1(b) RoP, without any bona fide third party standing behind its application. Scrutinising how the Court handled the dispute enhances its ability to advise and serves the Court and its users (paragraphs 9 and 10). The interest relied on matches the general interest recognised in Ocado, which arises once a decision has been given (paragraph 11). Pursuing commercial interests does not preclude access, as the applicant does not commercialise the documents, and copyright is not an interest to be protected under Art. 45 UPCA (paragraphs 13 and 14). Personal data are redacted, and EOFLow’s confidentiality interests are preserved by access to the redacted version only (paragraphs 15 to 17). Insulet’s request that the applicant bear the costs is rejected (paragraphs 18 and 19).

Key points for practice

• The Court of Appeal draws the line between using case files to advise, which is allowed, and redistributing them commercially, which the Docket Navigator order of 19 December 2025 excluded (paragraph 13).
• Confining the request to redacted versions from the outset defuses confidentiality objections (paragraphs 16 and 17).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 10(1), 45, 58 and 69(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1, 262.2 and 262A

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Case law cited

Ocado, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, Abbott v Powell Gilbert, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_480/2024 and UPC_CoA_481/2024, Docket Navigator v Sumi Agro and Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 19 December 2025, UPC_CoA_523/2024.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.