UPC Court of Appeal
UPC_CoA_404/2023
App_584498/2023

ORDER
of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 11 December 2023
concerning case-management

HEADNOTES: CASE MANAGEMENT
KEYWORDS: CASE MANAGEMENT

APPELLANT / CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE:
Ocado Innovation Limited
Represented by:
Anna Bladh Redzic Sandart & Partners Advokatbyrå KB
Simon Ayrton Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Thomas Oliver Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Joel Coles Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP

RESPONDENT:

DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE:
(1) Autostore AS
(2) Autostore Sp. z o.o.
(3) Autostore System AB
(4) Autostore S.A.S.
(5) Autostore System GmbH
(6) Autostore System AT GmbH
(7) Autostore System Srl
(8) Autostore System S.L
UPC Court of Appeal
UPC_CoA_404/2023
App_584498/2023
Represented by:
Laura Ramsay Dehns
Annabelle Beacham Dehns

PANEL
Second Panel

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English

DECIDING JUDGE:
This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur Ms Ingeborg Simonsson

IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
□ Date: 17 October 2023
□ Order no. 573437/2023/ UPC_CFI_11/2023 of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
(Judge Stefan Johansson)
POINTS AT ISSUE
Case management and corrections of how the parties are referred to

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
1. With reference to Rule 262.1(b) RoP on public access to the register, the Nordic-Baltic
Regional Division ordered access for to the statement of claim in
ACT_459791/2023, after redaction of personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU)
2016/679.
2. Ocado has appealed the order.
3. In the Court’s Case Management System (CMS), the Autostore companies have incorrectly
been designated as Respondents. It is rightly who is the Respondent, while the
Autostore companies were Defendants in the case before the Court of First Instance. The
Court of Appeal takes note of Ocado’s submission that four of the Defendants were never
served the statement of claim, and intends to address this in substance at a later stage.
4. The Respondent is not represented before the UPC and has stated that he makes his
request as a member of the public, on his own behalf, and not as or on behalf of a party or
client. Furthermore he does not believe that R. 8 RoP on representation applies to the
request, despite the suggestion in the CMS that a UPC representative is required. He has
made clear that he is not registered as a UPC representative at present.
5. Ocado and the Autostore companies should be provided with the opportunity to comment
on whether R. 8 RoP applies.
6. On 22 November 2023, an application to intervene was lodged in paper form and received
by the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg.
7. This order sets out the further steps in the proceedings.

ORDER
1. is the Respondent before the Court of Appeal and the Autostore companies
were parties (Defendants) in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
2. The Appellant Ocado and the Autostore companies are invited to provide their views on
whether needs to be represented. The time limit is 15 days from service of this
order.
3. Ocado, and the Autostore companies are hereby informed about the
application to intervene, which is served on them together with this order. They are,
pursuant to R. 314 RoP, given the opportunity to be heard. Answers should include any
reasoned requests for protection of confidential information (R. 315.2 RoP). The time limit
is 15 days from service of this order.
4. The judge-rapporteur will after the expiry of the time limit in paragraph 3 decide on the
admissibility of the application to intervene and (if the application is admissible) whether
the Intervener shall be treated as a party (R. 314 and 315.4 RoP). Any reasoned requests
for the protection of confidential information will be addressed by the Court at the same
time.
5. 15 days after service of the decision in paragraph 4, may lodge a Statement of
Response (R. 235 RoP), including any additional arguments on whether he needs to be
represented.
6. 15 days after service of the decision in paragraph 4, the Autostore companies may lodge a
Statement of Response (R. 235 RoP).
7. If the intervention is admissible, 15 days after service of the decision on intervention, the
Intervener shall lodge a Statement in intervention / Response, including its views on
whether needs to be represented.
8. Ocado may respond to the Statement in intervention at the oral hearing.
9. The Court of Appeal provides the opportunity for an oral hearing to be held on 15 February
2024 and invites the parties to comment on this.

Issued on 11 December 2023
NAMES AND SIGNATURES
Judge
Judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson
For the registrar
Clerk at the Court of Appeal