XXX v Abbott Diabetes Care (CFI, 17 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 17 December 2025, The Hague Local Division (presiding judge and judge-rapporteur sitting alone) refused a third party’s request for access to the file of provisional measures proceedings UPC_CFI_830/2025, brought by Abbott Diabetes Care against MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) and other defendants on EP 3 960 072. The applicant, acting for an unnamed competitor, had not shown a sufficiently specific interest, and the ongoing expedited procedure weighed against access.

Question

Does a representative acting for an unidentified competitor, which needs a freedom-to-operate analysis before a European launch, show a sufficient interest in accessing the file of pending provisional measures proceedings?

Decision

No. Referring to the specific interest test laid down by the Court of Appeal in Ocado v AutoStore, the division found it insufficiently clear that the applicant had such an interest: neither the Court nor the parties could check which competitor was involved. The claimed urgency was not explained, given that the proceedings were due to end within weeks, and access would burden the Court and the parties in a procedure already on a fast track. The parties had opposed the request.

Key points for practice

• Keeping the end client anonymous makes it hard to show a specific interest, since neither the Court nor the parties can verify it.
• Practical point: an access request lodged during provisional measures proceedings should explain why the interest relied on cannot wait for those proceedings to end shortly.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b) and 333

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation v AutoStore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 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.