Bardehle Pagenberg v Nokia Technologies (CFI, ORD_26783/2025, 30 June 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 June 2025, Judge Visser, presiding judge and judge rapporteur (Paris Central Division), granted Bardehle Pagenberg, as a member of the public, access to the “Application” and its exhibits, the defence to the application to amend and the reply, recorded under App_40293/2024, in HP Printing and Computing Solutions’ revocation action against Nokia Technologies on EP 2 661 892 (UPC_CFI_181/2024), which had closed after withdrawal without a decision on the merits. It held that no confidentiality condition is called for once proceedings have ended, and granted Nokia leave to appeal.

Question

May a third party access the pleadings and exhibits of a revocation action closed without a decision on the merits, and should access be subject to a confidentiality undertaking?

Decision

Yes as to access, no as to confidentiality. Where proceedings end without a decision, the balance of interests ordinarily favours access (paragraph 9), the wish to understand how the case was conducted in order to advise clients is enough, even though the settlement is public and the applicant has itself litigated before the UPC (paragraph 11), and no confirmation that the applicant acts on its own behalf is required (paragraph 12). The confidentiality condition applied by the Court of Appeal concerns pending proceedings (paragraphs 13 to 16). The Registry will redact personal data (paragraph 17). Leave to appeal was granted and the order’s effects suspended, since access is practically irreversible (paragraphs 18 and 19).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: after a withdrawal, a firm may obtain the pleadings without a confidentiality undertaking, a party resisting access must point to specific confidential information under Rule 262.2.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 10 and 45, Art. 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 224.1(b), 262.1(b) and 262.2

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation v Autostore, 10 April 2024, Nicoventures v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 25 April 2025, SWAT Medical v Meril Italy, Paris Central Division, 14 October 2024

Related decisions

• Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft, 30 June 2025, separate order of the same date on another access application in the same case.

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.