Meril Life Sciences v SWAT Medical (CoA, 5 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 5 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_636/2024, APL_58935/2024), the Court of Appeal, on an appeal by Meril Life Sciences, sets aside the Paris Central Division’s order of 14 October 2024 (ORD_37081/2024, UPC_CFI_15/2023) that had granted a European patent attorney, a board member of SWAT Medical, and that company access to the written pleadings and evidence in the counterclaim for revocation (CC_585030/2023) concerning EP 3 646 825, and dismisses the access application (App_33489/2024). The decision lays down two useful rules: a member of the public seeking access under Rule 262.1(b) must be represented, and no costs are awarded in such proceedings.

Question

Is a Statement of response valid when signed by an applicant for access who may neither represent himself nor the co-applicant company, and what decision must the Court then give. Can costs be awarded in proceedings for access to the register?

Decision

The named representative never appeared or signed the Statement of response, so no valid Statement of response was lodged (paragraphs 11 to 17). Rule 235.3 is a lex specialis. The reasoned decision it allows, even of the Court’s own motion, is effectively a decision by default, so the application to set aside under Rule 356.1 applies mutatis mutandis (paragraphs 18 to 23). Since every applicant before the UPC must be represented unless the Rules waive the requirement, access could not be granted to unrepresented members of the public (paragraph 24). Access to the register is an administrative, non-adversarial matter, so no costs are awarded, save for unnecessary costs under Art. 69(3) UPCA, which did not arise here (paragraphs 26 to 35).

Key points for practice

• An application for access under Rule 262.1(b) requires an authorised representative. A patent attorney acting for himself or for the company on whose board he sits cannot represent himself (paragraphs 8 and 24).
• Practical point: a party resisting an access application cannot expect to recover its costs, and the defaulting party has one month from service to apply to set the decision aside (Rule 356.1).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 10, 45, 47 and 69

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8, 235.3, 236, 262.1(b), 262.2, 293, 355, 356, 357 and 370

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024, Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 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.