Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CFI, 20 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_240/2023, ACT_549550/2023, ORD_4166/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division (Judge Zana) refused Bhagat Textile Engineers, applying as a member of the public (Rule 262.1(b)), access to the file of the counterclaim for revocation brought by Himson Engineering against Oerlikon Textile’s EP 2 145 848. The order shows that a purely procedural interest, tied to the applicant’s defence in other proceedings, is not enough to open up a pending case.

Question

Can a third party that lost a parallel action on the same patent obtain access to the pleadings and evidence in pending revocation proceedings to support its request for suspensive effect before the Court of Appeal?

Decision

No. Bhagat, whose request for suspensive effect the Court of Appeal had rejected on 16 January 2025, relied only on a procedural interest (paragraph 8). Much of the information already appears in public orders, the parties must remain free to pursue their strategy while the case is pending, a decision on the merits is expected before the appeal ruling, the Court of Appeal refused suspensive effect on other grounds, and Bhagat had not challenged the patent or infringement, had not joined the revocation action and is not a competitor with a specific need for the information (paragraph 9). A private defence interest does not fall within the general public interest in scrutiny of judicial activity and yields to the parties’ interests (paragraph 10). Oerlikon’s request for costs was refused, and leave to appeal was granted to secure a uniform reading of Rule 262.1(b) (paragraphs 12 and 13).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a member of the public seeking access must show an interest that goes beyond defending its own position in related litigation.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(a) and (b)

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023), Oerlikon v Himson, Milan Local Division, 27 September 2023, Amgen v Sanofi, Munich Central Division, 20 September 2023 (UPC_CFI_1/2023), Astellas v Healios, Munich Central Division, 22 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_75/2023), Nicoventures v NJOY, Paris Central Division, 24 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_316/2023), Vienna Local Division, 12 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_33/2024), Oerlikon v Himson, Milan Local Division, 17 September 2024, Oerlikon v Himson, Milan Local Division, 17 December 2024, Paris Central Division, ORD_36092/2024 and ORD_59519/2024 (UPC_CFI_189/2024), Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_11/2023).

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.