Taylor Wessing v NEC (CFI, 26 August 2025)
| Date | 26 August 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262.1 (b) |
| Registry reference | App_33511/2025 · ORD_33611/2025 |
| Parties | Taylor 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.
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action against TCL (UPC_CFI_487/2023, EP 2 645 714) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_397/2024), both withdrawn in January 2025.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
- Practical point: withdrawing an action does not shield the pleadings from third-party inspection, parties should plan for redacting their briefs and exhibits.
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
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
Parties
- claimantTaylor Wessing PartG mbBFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 645 714mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Abbott Diabetes Care v Powell Gilbert LLP (CoA, 9 January 2025) cited in this record
- Ocado Innovation v Autostore (CoA, 10 April 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 645 714Video 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.