Acer Computer v Nokia Technologies (CFI, ORD_22022/2025, 30 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 30 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_181/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division granted Acer Computer access to the application to amend the patent and its exhibits, the defence to that application and the reply, filed in HP Printing and Computing Solutions’ revocation action against Nokia Technologies (EP 2 661 892), which ended on 27 March 2025. Acer, itself sued by HP for infringement of the same patent before the Munich Local Division, showed a direct interest. The order confirms that once proceedings have ended, their integrity no longer stands in the way of public access.

Question

May a third party obtain access to the pleadings and evidence of revocation proceedings that ended without a decision, and can access be subject to conditions of use?

Decision

Rule 262.1(b) grants access on a reasoned request, subject to confidential information and personal data (paragraph 7). Under the principles of Ocado v Autostore, the interest in the integrity of proceedings generally no longer prevails once they have ended (paragraph 8). Acer had a specific interest arising from the infringement action, and there is a general public interest after proceedings end by settlement or withdrawal (paragraph 10). Conditions of use, such as a bar on filing the documents in other courts, apply only to pending proceedings (paragraphs 11 to 13), and Nokia showed no overriding interest (paragraph 14). Personal data are redacted by the Registry (paragraph 15). Leave to appeal was granted to Nokia and the order’s effects were suspended, as access is practically irreversible (paragraphs 16 and 17).

Key points for practice

• A defendant in an infringement action can obtain the pleadings of closed revocation proceedings on the same patent, without restrictions on use.
• Suspending the order’s effects until the appeal period expires preserves the usefulness of an appeal.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 10, 45 and 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 224.1(b), 262.1(b) and 262.2

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) 2016/679

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023), Nicoventures v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 25 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_7/2025), SWAT Medical v Meril Italy, Paris Central Division, 14 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023)

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.