Gowling WLG v Boehringer Ingelheim International (CoA, 24 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 24 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_9/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal partly granted the law firm Gowling WLG access to three written pleadings lodged on appeal in the dispute between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal concerning EP 1 830 843, which arose from provisional measures before the Lisbon Local Division. The request for « all exhibits » was dismissed. The decision clarifies how access requests are allocated between instances and how precise the applicant must be.

Question

On what conditions may a third party obtain access to pleadings and exhibits lodged before the Court of Appeal, and to which court should the request be addressed?

Decision

The general interest relied on, linked to professional advice, suffices for non-confidential documents (paragraph 24). Requests for first-instance documents go to the relevant division, and requests for appeal documents to the Court of Appeal (paragraphs 14 to 18). The request for exhibits was dismissed: it was ambiguous, mixed « all exhibits » with selection criteria and would have required the court to sort documents (paragraphs 21 to 23). Zentiva’s concerns, not supported by redacted versions under Rule 262.2, did not justify any restriction (paragraph 25), whereas Boehringer’s passages on non-public revenue and litigation costs remain redacted (paragraphs 26 and 27).

Key points for practice

• An access request must identify precisely the documents of the relevant instance. A blanket request for « all exhibits » will be dismissed (paragraphs 21 to 23).
• Practical point: a party wishing to protect information must file redacted versions, otherwise general objections carry no weight (paragraph 25).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 10(1), Art. 24(1)(d), Art. 45 and Art. 58

Statute of the Court

Arts 23 and 25

Rules of Procedure

Rules 222.1 and 262

TRIPS Agreement

Art. 39(2)

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, ECJ, 14 December 2000, Dior and Others, C-300/98 and C-392/98, CJEU, 11 September 2025, Duca di Salaparuta, C-341/24

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.