Vereenigde Octrooibureaux v Dolby International (CFI, 24 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 24 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_226/2024, App_11638/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division grants the firm Vereenigde Octrooibureaux, as a member of the public, limited access to the statement of claim in Dolby International’s action against three Optoma companies for infringement of EP 3 605 534, which ended in 2024 after withdrawal. Access excludes the exhibits and a large part of the statement of claim. The order confirms that an access request must identify the documents sought precisely, and that its scope is measured by the purpose pursued.

Question

May a third party wishing to understand why the proprietor considers its patent essential to a standard obtain access to the whole file of a closed action?

Decision

No, only to the statement of claim. The application, based on the wish to understand the alleged essentiality of the patent to the Opus audio codec standard, is admissible as regards that pleading (paragraphs 14 to 17), it is inadmissible as regards the exhibits, since the court need not search the file for relevant documents according to the applicant’s criteria (paragraphs 18 to 20). As the main proceedings have ended, the general interest in access outweighs the Art. 45 UPCA interests, without any specific interest being required. The parallel case relied on is irrelevant (paragraphs 27 and 28). Since no confidentiality request was made, only personal data are redacted. The time and money Dolby spent on its infringement analysis do not justify confidential treatment (paragraphs 29 and 30). Given the narrow purpose pursued, access is limited to the statement of claim, with paragraphs 1 to 174 and 233 to 249 redacted, once the appeal periods have expired (paragraph 31).

Key points for practice

• An access request aimed generally at « the file » is inadmissible beyond the pleadings precisely identified.
• Practical point: a third party should identify the documents it wishes to inspect and link each to its purpose, as the scope of access is calibrated on that purpose.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 45

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206, 262.1(b) and 262.2

Regulation (EU) 2016/679

protection of personal data

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Astellas v Healios, Munich Central Division, 22 August 2024, Swarco v Strabag, Vienna Local Division, 12 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_33/2024), Meril v Edwards, Paris Central Division, 14 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023), Phoenix Contact v I.L.M.E., Munich Local Division, 20 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_342/2024), Abbott v Powell Gilbert, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025, Dolby v Beko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_135/2024), Juul Labs v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 25 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_5/2025), NJOY v Juul Labs, Paris Central Division, 9 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_309/2023), Gowling, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026

Related decisions

• Dolby International v Optoma, 26 September 2024, decision ending the main action after withdrawal.
• Dolby International v Optoma, 27 July 2026, order granting another applicant access to the statement of claim and part of the exhibits.

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.