Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v Insulet (CFI, 16 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 16 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Central Division partly granted Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer’s request for access to the file of the proceedings Insulet v EOFLOW (UPC_CFI_380/2024). Only Insulet’s application and EOFLOW’s objection are to be provided, in redacted form, within five days. Access to the other eleven items requested, mostly exhibits, was refused. The order confirms that a third party relying on a mere need to understand the decision will obtain the pleadings, but seldom the exhibits.

Question

Does a law firm wishing to understand a decision better in order to advise its clients show a sufficient interest under Rule 262.1(b) to obtain access to the pleadings and exhibits?

Decision

Only in part. The judge examines the applicant’s specific interest and grants access only to documents that are essential to the stated purpose, weighing it against the parties’ legitimate interests and the general interest of justice, which includes preventing abusive requests. The redacted pleadings are enough to understand the decision. The exhibits are not needed and the risk of a scoping exercise prevails. Documents not mentioned in the decision of 22 July 2025 add nothing, and disclosing them would be disproportionate. Protected material (trade secrets, personal data) remains protected after the decision on the merits. No costs order was made, access proceedings not being contentious.

Key points for practice

• An applicant for access should define its purpose precisely: the extent of access is measured against that purpose, document by document.
• Parties resisting access should show that the documents sought played no part in the decision.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 45 and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b), 262.2 and 262A

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Munich Central Division, 20 September 2023, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_480/2024 and UPC_CoA_481/2024)

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.