Renault v Avago Technologies International Sales (CFI, 30 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 30 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_208/2024 and UPC_CFI_504/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division granted the request for access to the file made by Renault SAS, a third party which the proprietor had accused of infringement out of court, in the closed proceedings between Avago Technologies International Sales and Tesla Germany and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg (EP 1 770 912). Access covers the pleadings and evidence, including the FRAND pleadings, in redacted form, but not decisions and orders.

Question

What interest must a third party show to access the file of proceedings ended by withdrawal, and which versions of the documents does access cover?

Decision

Since the proceedings were closed by the withdrawal decisions of 7 January 2025, a general interest in inspection suffices (paragraphs 13 and 14), after a decision ending the proceedings, the public interest in understanding the case and overseeing the court generally outweighs the interests protected by Article 45 UPCA, and the request was not abusive (paragraphs 16 to 19). Decisions and orders fall outside Rule 262.1(b) RoP (paragraph 15). Access covers the full content of the pleadings, including non-technical matter, but only in redacted form, since confidentiality requests under Rule 262.2 RoP had been made and Renault did not apply under Rule 262.3 RoP (paragraphs 20 to 24). Personal data are blacked out and annexes are provided on a targeted request, the parties uploading redacted versions to a secure data room (paragraphs 25 to 27).

Key points for practice

• Once the proceedings are closed, a third party facing infringement allegations obtains the technical and FRAND pleadings without showing a specific interest. The parties are protected only by confidentiality requests made during the proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b), 262.2 and 262.3

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Abbott Diabetes Care v Powell Gilbert, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025, Nicoventures v Juul Labs, Court of Appeal, 25 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_5/2025), Slavik v MyStromer, Düsseldorf Local Division, 17 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_177/2023), Bardehle v Nokia, Munich Local Division, 22 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_439/2023), Phoenix Contact v I.L.M.E., Munich Local Division, 20 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_342/2024), Meril v Edwards, Paris Central Division, 14 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023), Ampersand v Panasonic, Mannheim Local Division, 26 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_210/2023), Epson v Dolby, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_135/2024)

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.