Ocado Innovation v Third Party (CoA, 6 November 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 6 November 2023 (UPC_CoA_407/2023, App_584588/2023), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal, acting in extreme urgency, granted suspensive effect to Ocado Innovation’s appeal against the order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (ORD_573437/2023) that gave a third party access, from 7 November 2023, to the statement of claim in its action against the Autostore companies (Rule 262.1(b) RoP). The third party is not to obtain access pending the Court of Appeal’s decision on the merits. The order shows that public access, once given, cannot be withdrawn, which is what justifies suspension.

Question

Should an appeal against an order granting a third party access to the statement of claim have suspensive effect, and may the standing judge apply the extreme urgency procedure of its own motion?

Decision

An appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise on a motivated request (Art. 74 UPCA), and the Court decides without delay. In extreme urgency, the standing judge has all the powers of the Court (paragraphs 4 and 5). Although Ocado had not invoked Rule 223.4 RoP, the short timeframe justified applying it (paragraph 3). Without suspensive effect, the access order would be enforceable on 7 November 2023 and the appeal would become devoid of purpose (paragraph 6).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party appealing a public access order should apply at once for suspensive effect, since access once granted would leave the appeal without purpose.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74

Rules of Procedure

Rules 223, 223.4, 233 and 262.1(b)

Other provisions

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR)

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.