Meril Life Sciences v SWAT Medical (CoA, 12 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_636/2024), the Court of Appeal, hearing Meril Life Sciences’ appeal against the Paris Central Division’s order of 14 October 2024 granting third parties access to the pleadings in the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 646 825, ordered both respondents to instruct an authorised representative within 14 days. The first respondent, a European patent attorney acting for himself, and SWAT Medical, whose board he chairs, were not validly represented. The order makes clear that legal professionals cannot represent themselves before the UPC.

Question

May a European patent attorney who is a party to an access request under Rule 262.1(b) represent himself and the company he chairs?

Decision

No. Meril’s argument that no admissible request had ever been lodged was out of time (Rules 222.2 and 226) (paragraph 14). Representation is an admissibility requirement involving public policy, which the Court may examine of its own motion at any time while giving the party an opportunity to remedy the defect (paragraph 15). All applicants must be represented, including under Rule 262.1(b), and lawyers and European patent attorneys are not exempt when they are themselves parties (paragraphs 16 and 17), the reference to KIPA AB as SWAT Medical’s representative did not amount to representation of the first respondent (paragraph 18). A person with extensive administrative or financial powers within a legal person, such as a senior manager or significant shareholder, cannot represent it, even if qualified (paragraphs 19 to 22). As the law had not been clarified when the appeal was filed, 14 days were allowed to appoint representatives and lodge a statement of response (paragraph 23).

Key points for practice

• An applicant for access to the file, even a legal professional, must be represented by an independent representative. A company’s senior officer cannot represent it before the UPC.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 48(1), (2) and (5) and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.1, 9.1, 9.3(a), 222.2, 226, 235, 236.1(a), 262.1(b), 284 and 290.1

Case law cited

Ocado v Respondent, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023), Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_563/2024)

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.