Franz Kaldewei v Bette (CFI, 23 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 23 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_7/2023, App_44641/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division grants a law firm, as a member of the public, access to the pleadings and evidence of the action for infringement of EP 3 375 337 between Franz Kaldewei and Bette, which ended with a decision of 3 July 2024 that was not appealed. Only one submission and two exhibits concerning the defendant’s customers are excluded. The order accepts that a law firm may rely on training its lawyers to obtain access, and holds that a summons and the minutes of a hearing are not pleadings within Rule 262.1(b) RoP.

Question

May a law firm wishing to train its staff in UPC proceedings obtain access to the pleadings and evidence of a case decided with final effect?

Decision

Yes. The application states its purpose and the reasons for access (paragraph 13). Once the first instance is over, the public generally has an interest in access, which supports understanding of the decision and confidence in the court (paragraph 16). A law firm is part of the public, since reviewing the court’s practice improves its advice to clients (paragraph 18). As the decision is final and no abuse is shown, that interest outweighs the Art. 45 UPCA interests, the claimant’s objections are incompatible with Court of Appeal case law (paragraphs 19 and 20). The summons and the minutes of the hearing are not pleadings or evidence within Rule 262.1(b) RoP (paragraphs 21 and 22). The defendant’s confidentiality request is granted for the submission of 23 August 2024 and exhibits KM-A 1 and KM-A 2, which contain undisputed confidential information about its customers (paragraphs 23 and 24). Personal data are redacted.

Key points for practice

• Internal training of a law firm’s lawyers is a sufficient purpose for public access to the file of a closed case.
• Practical point: a party wishing to protect information against an access request should target the relevant submissions and exhibits precisely, as the defendant did here.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b) and 262.2

Regulation (EU) 2016/679

protection of personal data

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Swarco v Strabag, Vienna Local Division, 12 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_33/2024), Astellas v Healios, 22 August 2024, Meril v Edwards, 14 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023), Regeneron v Amgen, 22 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_14/2023), Phoenix Contact v I.L.M.E., Munich Local Division, 20 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_342/2024), NanoString v Harvard College, 3 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_252/2023), Abbott v Powell Gilbert, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025, Dolby v Beko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_135/2024), Juul Labs v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 25 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_5/2025), NJOY v Juul Labs, 9 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_309/2023), Hepp Wenger Ryffel v myStromer, Düsseldorf Local Division, 17 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_177/2023), Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, Court of Appeal, 22 December 2025

Related decisions

• Franz Kaldewei v Bette, 3 July 2024, decision that ended the main action.

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.