Opens in a new tab

Taylor Wessing v NEC (CFI, 26 August 2025)

Date26 August 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262.1 (b)
Registry referenceApp_33511/2025 · ORD_33611/2025
PartiesTaylor Wessing PartG mbB

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 26 August 2025 (ORD_33611/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division granted the law firm Taylor Wessing, acting as a member of the public, access in redacted form to six pleadings in NEC’s infringement action against TCL (UPC_CFI_487/2023, EP 2 645 714) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_397/2024), both withdrawn in January 2025. Withdrawal without a decision on the merits does not bar access, since a general interest suffices once the proceedings are closed.

Question

May a third party obtain access under Rule 262.1(b) to the pleadings in proceedings that ended by withdrawal, without a decision on the merits, and on what terms?

Decision

Yes, largely. The reasoned request is a formal requirement: once the proceedings have ended, a general interest in inspection suffices (paragraphs 20 to 23). That interest is weighed against those listed in Art. 45 UPCA (paragraphs 24 to 26), it prevails here, as no abuse is shown, educational purposes are legitimate and withdrawal does not preclude access (paragraphs 27 to 32). Confidential information within Rule 262.2 and personal data must be redacted (paragraphs 33 to 36). Access is staged: first the pleadings without annexes, then exhibits on request to the Registry (paragraphs 37 and 38). The remainder of the request is rejected.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 45
Rules of Procedure
Rules 262.1(b), 262.2, 262.3 and 262A
Other provisions
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR)
Case law cited
Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Powell Gilbert v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025, Nicoventures v Juul, Court of Appeal, 25 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_5/2025), and several orders of the Düsseldorf, Munich and Mannheim Local Divisions and the Paris Central Division

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Confidentiality club.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Taylor Wessing obtient l'accès, en version expurgée et par étapes, à six mémoires d'une procédure retirée, un intérêt général suffisant après la clôture.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 645 714
Video decoding device, video decoding method, and program
recorded proprietor: NEC Corp
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): NEC v Shenzhen Transsion (CFI, UPC_CFI_499/2025, 23 December 2025) · NEC v TCL Deutschland (CFI, 31 July 2025) · NEC v TCL Deutschland (CFI, ORD_2317/2025, 17 January 2025) · NEC v TCT Mobile Germany (CFI, 2 October 2024) · NEC v TCL Deutschland (CFI, ORD_41184/2024, 14 August 2024) · NEC v TCL Deutschland (CFI, ORD_41183/2024, 14 August 2024) · NEC v TCL Industrial (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2024, 29 July 2024) · NEC v TCL Deutschland (CFI, 24 January 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.