Gowling WLG v Merz Therapeutics (CFI, 19 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 19 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_283/2026), the Paris Local Division partly granted the law firm Gowling WLG access to the file of the provisional measures proceedings between Merz and Viatris Santé (UPC_CFI_697/2025), concerning EP 2 377 536 and supplementary protection certificate FR13C0033. Access is limited to the passages on unreasonable delay, the only point decided by the order of 21 November 2025. The order ties the scope of public access to what the court actually decided.

Question

May a third party obtain access to all pleadings and exhibits in provisional measures proceedings where the final order decided only one ground?

Decision

The request is admissible only for the documents specifically identified, since « including but not limited to » wording does not bring the whole file before the division. A law firm has a legitimate interest in understanding a decision once issued. As the final order decided only unreasonable delay (Rule 211.4), access is limited to the extracts on that point, the submissions on a time extension request and six Merz exhibits. Submissions on SPC validity, proportionality and the balance of interests, which were not decided, remain inaccessible to preserve the integrity of any merits action. Confidentiality objections were rejected, as no request under Rule 262.2 or Rule 262A had been made on filing. Personal data are anonymised by the Registry.

Key points for practice

• Public access after a provisional measures decision may be confined to the grounds actually decided, as the others may still be argued on the merits.
• Practical point: a party wishing to protect information must request confidentiality on filing, a late objection to access is not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 45, 58 and 60(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 211.4, 262.1(b), 262.2, 262A and 333

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_480/2024), Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 22 December 2025, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer v Insulet, Milan Central Division, 16 October 2025

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.