SYPOX v Topsoe (CFI, 27 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order of 27 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_894/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Central Division takes note of SYPOX’s withdrawal of the unredacted version of an investment agreement (exhibit D36), filed to show its SME status in the action for revocation of Topsoe’s patent EP 3 802 413: the court will disregard it and SYPOX may rely only on the redacted version (D36R). Topsoe’s request for access is rejected. The order shows that a party can defuse a confidentiality dispute by withdrawing the full version of an exhibit, at the price of no longer being able to rely on it.

Question

Where a party withdraws the unredacted version of an exhibit and relies only on the redacted version, does the opponent retain an interest in access to the full version?

Decision

No. The parties dispute SYPOX’s SME status, which may affect court fees and the ceiling on recoverable costs, Topsoe arguing that a third party, European Energy, controls SYPOX and SYPOX replying that the third party’s consent rights expired on 1 July 2026. The withdrawal of D36 means that the court will decide on the basis of D36R alone and disregard any information found only in the full version, which remains on file with restricted access. Topsoe’s assertion that D36 may contain material against SME status is not substantiated. SYPOX’s interest in confidentiality prevails, so Topsoe lacks a sufficient legal interest. The decision on public access to D36 and D36R is deferred until a member of the public applies, and Topsoe is invited to comment by 7 August 2026. The reasons are not numbered.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party concerned about having to disclose a sensitive exhibit to its opponent may withdraw it and file only a redacted version, accepting that only the latter will be taken into account.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 76(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b), 262.2 and 262A

Case law cited

ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 26 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024)

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.