Nicoventures Trading v Juul Labs (CoA, ORD_17094/2025, 25 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 25 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_237/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading, an opponent before the EPO, immediate access to the statement of appeal and the response to a request for correction filed by Juul Labs in its appeal against the Paris Central Division’s revocation decision of 17 January 2025 (EP 3 430 921), in the case against NJOY Netherlands. Access is subject to a ban on filing those pleadings with other courts, including the EPO Boards of Appeal, while the appeal is pending.

Question

May a third party to parallel opposition proceedings have access to the pleadings in a pending appeal, and on what conditions?

Decision

Under the Ocado order, the public interest is weighed against the interests listed in Art. 45 UPCA and the integrity of proceedings. A third party with a direct interest in validity may justify immediate access (paragraph 8). A request may cover documents lodged before the parties comment if it clearly includes them, but a blanket request for future or unspecified documents is inadmissible (paragraphs 9 to 11). Nicoventures had a direct interest (paragraph 12). Juul Labs’ concern that passages would be copied into briefs made public by the EPO is valid but can be addressed by conditions imposed of the Court’s own motion (paragraph 13): no filing or distribution of the pleadings until the appeal ends, without preventing Nicoventures from using the arguments and prior art or from telling the EPO that they were raised before the UPC (paragraph 14). Nicoventures has no right to comment on the parties’ submissions (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

• An EPO opponent may read the UPC appeal pleadings at once but may not file them at the EPO before the appeal ends. It must identify the documents requested precisely.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b) and 262.2

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) 2016/679

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023)

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.