Ocado Innovation v Respondent (CoA, 8 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023, App_584498/2023), the Court of Appeal held that a member of the public requesting access to documents on the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP must be represented before the UPC, and gave him 14 days to appoint a representative. For companies and third parties interested in a file, the consequence is practical: an access request requires a lawyer or authorised patent attorney, at first instance as on appeal.

Question

The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division had granted an individual, acting in person, access to Ocado’s statement of claim against the Autostore companies, after redaction of personal data. On Ocado’s appeal, the court had to decide whether that applicant, who argued he was not a party, was subject to the representation requirement in Rule 8.1 RoP.

Decision

Article 47 UPCA covers only actions under Article 32, the notion of a party in Rule 8.1 is wider and covers the applicant in any application, as the express exception in Rule 5.4 for opt-out applications confirms (paragraphs 1 to 3). The requirement is not unduly burdensome: representation protects the party and ensures the proper conduct of proceedings, and the access procedure is adversarial and open to appeal (paragraphs 4 to 8). The statement of response lodged by the individual himself was disregarded. He was given 14 days under Rule 9.1 to remedy the defect, failing which a decision may be given on the file (Rule 235.3) (paragraphs 9 and 10). An oral hearing was set for 12 March 2024.

Key points for practice

• A third party’s access request under Rule 262.1(b) must be lodged by a representative within the meaning of Article 48 UPCA.
• Lack of representation can be cured: the court grants a time limit rather than dismissing the request as inadmissible.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 32, 47 and 48

Rules of Procedure

Rules 5.4, 8.1, 9.1, 9.3(a), 235.3, 262.1(b), 284 and 290.1

Case law cited

CJEU, 4 February 2020, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA, C-515/17 P and C-561/17 P.

Related decisions

• Ocado Innovation v Autostore, 17 October 2023, first instance order granting access, under appeal.

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.