BITZER Electronics v Carrier (CFI, 6 March 2024)
| Date | 6 March 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Application RoP262.1 (b) |
| Registry reference | App_6758/2024 · ORD_7460/2024 |
| Parties | AUGUST 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.
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
- Practical point: Registry documents fall outside Rule 262.1(b) RoP, the opt-out status of a patent is checked on the Register.
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
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
- claimantAUGUST DEBOUZYFollow 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)
- 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
EP 3 414 708mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CFI, 8 January 2024) cited in this record
- Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healios K.K (CFI, 21 September 2023) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 414 708Adaptive 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.