Dolby International v Optoma Deutschland (CFI, 28 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 27 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_226/2024, App_57167/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division grants a lawyer, as a member of the public, access to the statement of claim and part of the exhibits in Dolby International’s action against three Optoma companies for infringement of EP 3 605 534, which ended in 2024 after withdrawal. The passages on out-of-court contacts between the parties are designated confidential. The order confirms that once the first-instance proceedings are over, the general interest in access will normally prevail, even where the dispute touches on FRAND negotiations.

Question

May a third party relying on a professional interest in FRAND issues obtain access to the pleadings and exhibits of an action ended by withdrawal, despite the parties’ objections?

Decision

Yes, in part. The application, which sets out its purpose and the reasons for access, is admissible (paragraphs 15 to 19). After a first-instance decision, the public generally has an interest in access, regardless of any appeal, parallel proceedings or provisional measures (paragraphs 22 and 23), that interest outweighs the Art. 45 UPCA interests here, no abuse being shown and the parallel case having also ended at first instance (paragraphs 25 to 27). Paragraphs 25 to 35 of the statement of claim and exhibits BP-V1 to BP-V5, on out-of-court contacts, are confidential (paragraph 28), the rest of the application is refused. Personal data must be redacted (paragraph 29) and the applicant must keep the information obtained confidential, on pain of a penalty payment (paragraph 30). Court orders, published under Rule 262.1(a) RoP, fall outside the application (paragraph 31).

Key points for practice

• Material on out-of-court exchanges between the parties (FRAND negotiations included) may be withheld, while the rest of the file is disclosed.
• Practical point: access granted to a third party may come with a confidentiality undertaking backed by a penalty payment, even where the interest relied on is professional education.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206, 262.1(a), 262.1(b) and 262.2

Regulation (EU) 2016/679

protection of personal data

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Astellas v Healios, Munich Central Division, 22 August 2024, Swarco v Strabag, Vienna Local Division, 12 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_33/2024), Meril v Edwards, Paris Central Division, 14 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023), Phoenix Contact v I.L.M.E., Munich Local Division, 20 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_342/2024), Abbott v Powell Gilbert, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025, Dolby v Beko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_135/2024), Juul Labs v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 25 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_5/2025), NJOY v Juul Labs, Paris Central Division, 9 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_309/2023), Renault v Avago, Munich Local Division, 30 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_208/2024), Gowling, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026

Related decisions

• Dolby International v Optoma, 26 September 2024, decision ending the main action after withdrawal.

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.