AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten v Panasonic Holdings (CFI, 26 March 2025)
| Date | 26 March 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262.1 (b) |
| Registry reference | App_5154/2025 · ORD_5519/2025 |
| Parties | AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 26 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_210/2023, ORD_5519/2025), Judge-rapporteur Tochtermann, presiding judge of the Mannheim Local Division, provisionally and partly granted the law firm AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten access to the file in Panasonic Holdings’ infringement action on EP 2 568 724 against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany. Panasonic must provide redacted versions of the listed documents on an encrypted data carrier or through an encrypted online data room. The remainder of the application was rejected.
Question
To what extent, and how, may a third party relying on a general and academic interest obtain access to the file in a voluminous case?
Decision
Applying the Court of Appeal’s guidelines (UPC_CoA_404/2023) and taking account of the burden on the parties in a highly complex case, the judge limited access, for now, to the auxiliary request of 11 March 2025, leaving room for further interests to be specified later (paragraph 1). Access through the CMS was ruled out: the number of workflows, recurring system errors and submissions containing secrets without a matching confidentiality workflow meant it could not be ensured that only the intended documents would be released, so Panasonic must extract the documents as PDFs (paragraph 2). Within those limits, the general interest in UPC proceedings and the interest in contributing to academic publications justify access (paragraph 3).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a targeted request for access stands a better chance in a voluminous case, and the judge may require a party to provide documents outside the CMS.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 262.1(b) and 262.2
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_404/2023 (Ocado v Autostore)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Confidentiality club.
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantAMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbBFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262.1 (b)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- L'accès est accordé provisoirement pour les seules pièces visées par la demande subsidiaire, sous forme de versions expurgées remises par Panasonic sur support ou salle de données chiffrés. Le surplus est rejeté.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 568 724mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.