Central Division
Paris Seat

ORDER
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Central division (Paris seat)
issued on 6 March 2024
concerning the Application RoP262.1(b) No. App_6758/2024
lodged in the proceedings UPC_CFI_263/2023

HEADNOTES: request for public access to register

KEYWORDS: documents issued the Registry

REFERENCE CODE ECLI:

APPLICANT:
Martin Lionel - 7 rue de Téhéran, 75008 Paris, France

RESPONDENTS:
BITZER Electronics A/S - Kærvej 77 - 6400 - Sønderborg - DK
represented by Tilman Pfrang, Meissner Bolte
Carrier Corporation - 13995 Pasteur Blvd. - FL 33418 - Palm Beach Gardens - US
represented by Gregory Lees

PATENT AT ISSUE:
European patent n° EP 3 414 708

PANEL:
Presiding judge François Thomas
Judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi
Technically qualified judge Ulrike Keltsch

DECIDING JUDGE:
This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PARTIES’ REQUESTS:
1. On 29 June 2023 BITZER Electronics A/S brought an action against Carrier Corporation before
this Seat of the Unified Patent Court, registered firstly as PR_ACT_536477/2023
UPC_CFI_188/2023 and then as No. ACT_555899/2023 UPC_CFI_263/2023, asking for the
revocation of the patent at issue to the extent of claim 1.
2. On 6 February 2024 the applicant lodged an application, pursuant to Rule 262 (1) (b) of the Rules
of Procedures (‘RoP’), registered as No. App_6758/2024, seeking access to the following
documents related to the revocation action proceedings: notification under Rule 16 (3) (a) of the
Rules of Procedures (‘RoP’) by the Registrar; subsequent communication under Rule 17 (1) (c)
by the Registrar; three “Acknowledgment-of-lodging” in ACT_555899/2023 UPC_CFI_263/2023;
the “Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome” in ACT_555899/2023
UPC_CFI_263/2023; the decision ORD_591040/2023 of January 8, 2024, in App_590707/2023
UPC_CFI_263/2023.
3. The respondents, consulted by the Court, did not lodge any comment on the application.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
4. The applicant has based its request on the fact that in the current proceedings the Registrar has
issued a notification under Rule 16 (3) (a) ‘RoP’ for correction of deficiencies of the statement
for revocation and then has informed the claimant of the date of receipt of the correction
pursuant to Rule 18 (1) (c) ‘RoP’.
5. He has argued that it is of peculiar importance to know whether the intermediate opt-out, filed
on 13 July 2023, has been effective or not.
6. The judge-rapporteur notes that, pursuant to the referred to Rule 262 (1) (b) ‘RoP’, ‘written
pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court and recorded by the Registry shall be available to
the public upon reasoned request to the Registry; …’.
7. The Rule has to be interpreted, according to the literal wording of the provision, meaning that it
refers to only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties and that it does not include
other documents which are uploaded in the CMS (see UPC_CFI_75/2023 CD Munich, order of 21
September 2023).
8. It follows that Rule 262 (1) (b) ‘RoP’ does not apply to the request to access to communication
occurred between the Registry and the parties and to evidence of activities carried out by the
Registry.
9. Therefore, the applicant’s request to access to documents, uploaded in the CMS, concerning the
examination of the formal requirement of the statement for revocation executed by the Registry
and the relative communications, does not fall under the scope of this Rule.
10. The same can be said with regard to the request to access to order ORD_591040/2023 of 8
January 2024, issued by the Court regarding a request of stay of the proceedings, because it
cannot be deemed as written pleadings or evidence lodged by one of the parties.
11. It may be added that the interest of members of the public to know the status of a patent and,
in particular, whether it is subject to an opt-out or not can be satisfied by accessing to the
Register pursuant to Art. 37 of the Rules governing the Registry of the Unified Patent Court.
12. The applicant has affirmed that he has interest in knowing the filing date of the statement for
revocation lodged in the current proceedings, so that he can determine if the opt-out of the
patent that occurred between the date of the lodging of the statement of claim and the date of
the lodging of its corrected version is effective or not.
13. At this regard, it is not clear which is the specific interest that the applicant, as a member of the
public, has in understanding the legal implication of the opt-out in the proceedings at hand and,
anyway, the determination of the opt-out's effectiveness ultimately rests with the Court's
decision on the revocation action.
14. Lastly, it may be observed that according to Rule 262 (1) (a) ‘RoP’ all decisions and orders made
by the Court are published, fulfilling the applicant's need to access order ORD_591040/2023 of
8 January 2024.

ORDER
For these grounds, having heard the parties, the judge-rapporteur:
- rejects the application.

Issued on 6 March 2024.