HARTING Electric Stiftung v PHOENIX CONTACT (CFI, 20 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 20 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_342/2024, ACT_37621/2024), the presiding judge of panel 2 of the Munich Local Division, acting as judge-rapporteur, granted HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG, a competitor of both sides, access to the pleadings and evidence in the pending infringement action PHOENIX CONTACT v I.L.M.E. concerning EP 3 602 692. The order holds that the opponent in pending opposition proceedings against the patent in suit has a legal interest in inspecting the file while the action is still running.

Question

Can a third party obtain access to the written pleadings and evidence of a pending action under Rule 262.1(b), and what interest must it show?

Decision

The file is in principle public (Art. 10(1) and Art. 45 UPCA), while the proceedings are pending, a general interest in information is not enough and a concrete legal interest is required (paragraphs 12 to 17). National utility model proceedings brought against the applicant did not establish one, since no overlap of claims or products was shown (paragraph 19). The pending EPO opposition did, as the arguments on claim construction and prior art may be relevant there, and the second defendant’s intervention in the opposition did not alter this (paragraphs 20 to 24). The integrity of the proceedings was not at risk and no confidentiality was claimed, so only personal data are to be redacted (paragraphs 25 and 26).

Key points for practice

• Standing as an EPO opponent is enough to obtain access to the file of a pending action on the same patent. National litigation on related rights is not, unless an overlap is shown.
• Practical point: a party wishing to shield its pleadings from a competitor who is also an opponent must raise confidentiality specifically, failing which only personal data will be redacted.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 10(1), Art. 45 and Art. 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

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

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023), Nicoventures Trading v NJOY Netherlands, 24 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_316/2023), UPC_CFI_255/2023, 14 October 2023, Munich Local Division, UPC_CFI_75/2023, 4 November 2024, Vienna Local Division, UPC_CFI_33/2024, 12 August 2024, Hamburg Local Division, UPC_CFI_151/2024, 17 September 2024

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.