Bardehle Pagenberg v Nokia Technologies (CFI, ORD_26760/2025, 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 the firm Bardehle Pagenberg, as a member of the public, access to the statement for revocation, the defence, the reply and the rejoinder, with their exhibits, in HP Printing and Computing Solutions’ action against Nokia Technologies (EP 2 661 892), which ended by withdrawal. Access was refused to two exhibits reproducing a confidential statement of claim filed before the Munich Local Division. The order confirms the low threshold that applies once proceedings have closed.

Question

May a firm of representatives obtain the pleadings of revocation proceedings that ended by withdrawal, and must it keep them confidential?

Decision

Following Ocado v Autostore, the integrity of proceedings matters mainly while they are pending. Once they have ended, including by withdrawal, the balance generally favours access (paragraphs 9 and 10). The applicant’s reasons met the relatively low bar for closed cases: public information about the parties’ agreement does not remove the interest in how the case was conducted, and acting as a representative in other cases is no obstacle (paragraph 12). Exhibits MN 0 and MN 0 T, taken from pending Munich proceedings and marked confidential, were excluded. The applicant may apply to that division (paragraph 13). No confirmation that it acts on its own behalf was required (paragraph 14). The restrictions on use in Nicoventures v NJOY and Ocado v Autostore apply only to pending proceedings, and a duty of confidentiality could conflict with scientific or educational interests (paragraphs 15 to 18). Leave to appeal was granted and the order’s effects were suspended (paragraphs 20 and 21).

Key points for practice

• Exhibits from other pending proceedings filed in a closed case remain protected by those proceedings. Access must be sought from the division seised of them.

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.