Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen (CFI, 20 September 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 September 2023 (UPC_CFI_1/2023, ACT_459505/2023, application 546231/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Central Division rejected an application by a patent attorney, whose name is redacted, for access to the pleadings and evidence in the revocation action brought by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie against Amgen’s EP 3666797, and granted leave to appeal. The order takes a demanding view of Rule 262.1(b) RoP: a third party must show a concrete, verifiable and legally relevant reason.

Question

Is a personal and professional wish to form a view on a patent’s validity a sufficient reason for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP?

Decision

Without a concrete, verifiable and legally relevant reason, the distinction between Rule 262.1(a) RoP, which gives access to decisions, and Rule 262.1(b) RoP, which makes access to pleadings subject to a reasoned request, would lose its substance. Confidentiality is dealt with under Rules 262.2 to 262.6 RoP, the default remains that third parties see in the register that documents exist, but not their content. No general right of access derives from the principle of publicity (Arts 10(1) and 45 UPCA, Art. 23 of the Statute), from EU law or from national laws. Third-party interests and the prevention of misuse of evidence (Art. 58 UPCA) are also relevant. The wish relied on, after the initial reference to a client was dropped, was neither concrete nor verifiable, and the patent, its prosecution history and the prior art are public. Leave to appeal was granted given the need for consistent interpretation.

Key points for practice

• A third party seeking access to pleadings must set out a concrete and verifiable interest, beyond a general interest in the patent.
• Practical point: relying on the interest of an unnamed client is not enough, since the court must be able to assess the reason.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 10(1), 45, 58 and 73(2)(b)(ii)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 115, 220.2, 224.1(b), 262.1(a) and (b), 262.2 to 262.7

Other provisions

Statute of the Unified Patent Court, Arts 23 and 35(5), Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 38

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.