Opens in a new tab

BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 6 March 2024)

Date6 March 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionApplication RoP262.1 (b)
Registry referenceApp_6758/2024 · ORD_7460/2024
PartiesAUGUST DEBOUZY

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 6 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_263/2023, ACT_555899/2023, App_6758/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division (P. Catallozzi) rejected Martin Lionel’s application for public access in the revocation action on EP 3 414 708 brought by BITZER Electronics A/S against Carrier Corporation. The order reads Rule 262.1(b) RoP narrowly: it covers only the written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties.

Question

Does Rule 262.1(b) RoP give the public access to Registry notifications and communications, acknowledgments of lodging and a Court order, so as to check whether an opt-out filed on 13 July 2023 was effective?

Decision

Read literally, the rule covers only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, not other documents uploaded to the CMS (paragraph 7), it excludes communications between the Registry and the parties and evidence of Registry activity (paragraph 8), as well as order ORD_591040/2023 issued on a request for a stay (paragraph 10). The public’s interest in the status of the patent, including an opt-out, is met by the Register (Art. 37 of the Registry Rules) (paragraph 11). The applicant’s specific interest was not established, and whether the opt-out is effective is for the Court seised of the action (paragraph 13). Since decisions and orders are published (Rule 262.1(a)), there was no need for access on that point (paragraph 14).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 16.3(a), 17.1(c), 18.1(c) and 262.1(a) and (b)
Case law cited
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K, Munich Central Division, 21 September 2023

Related decisions

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande d'accès est rejetée : la règle 262.1 b) ne vise que les mémoires et pièces déposés par les parties, non les documents du greffe ni les ordonnances, qui sont publiées.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 414 708
Adaptive sensor sampling of a cold chain distribution system
recorded proprietor: Carrier Corp
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 29 July 2024) · Mathys & Squire LLP v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 29 July 2024) · Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CoA, 28 May 2024) · Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 30 April 2024) · BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 5 April 2024) · Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 8 January 2024) · BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 5 July 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.