Paris Local Division
UPC_CFI_583/2024
Procedural Order
of the Court of First Instance,
delivered on 19/02/2025

APPLICANT
POSCO
(Goedong-dong) 6261,
Donghaean-ro, Nam-gu Pohang-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do
- 37859 - Seoul - KR
Represented by Jasper Werhahn

PARTIES IN PROCEEDINGS
CLAIMANT
ArcelorMittal
24-26 Boulevard d'Avranches
1160 Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Represented by Camille Pecnard, Cabinet Lavoix

DEFENDANTS
XPENG INC
No. 8 Songgang Road, Changxing Street, Cencun, Tianhe District
510640 - Guangzhou, Guangdong – Chine
XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV
Hoogoorddreef 11
1101BA - Amsterdam – Pays-Bas
XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL
92 route de la reine
92100 - Boulogne-Billancourt – France
JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS
ZI des Landiers Ouest, 158 rue des épinettes
73290 - La Motte-Servolex – France
E-LAIN SAS
ZI des Landiers Ouest, 158 rue des épinettes
73290 - La Motte-Servolex – France
XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV
Hoogoorddreef 11
1101BA - Amsterdam – Pays-Bas
ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV
Plesmanstraat 36
3905KZ - Veenendaal – Pays-Bas
XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH
Frankfurter Ring 81
80807 - München – Allemagne
MOLL GmbH & Co.KG
Am Seestern 3a
40547 - Düsseldorf – Allemagne
Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG
Rather Straße 78-80
40476 - Düsseldorf - Allemagne
XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB
Pyramidvägen 7
169 56 Solna - Stockholm – Suède
BILIA AB
Box 9003
40091 - Göteborg – Suède
XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS
Lodbrogsvej 4A
3400 - Hillerød – Danemark
EJNER HESSEL A/S
Jyllandsvej 4
7330 - Brande – Danemark
HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE LUXEMBOURG S.A.
12, rue Guillaume Schneider
2522 - Luxembourg – Luxembourg
Represented by David Mulder, Taylor Wessing N.V.
XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl
De Kleetlaan 4
1831 - Machelen (Brab.) – Belgique
HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA
Industriepark Noord 2
9100 - Sint-Niklaas – Belgique
Represented by Christian Dekoninck, Taylor Wessing N.V.

PATENT AT ISSUE:
Patent Number Proprietor(s)
EP3290200 ArcelorMittal

DECIDING JUDGE
Presiding judge and Judge-rapporteur Camille Lignieres
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
O
RDER
An infringement ac􀆟on based on the patent EP 3 290 200 (“EP’200”) was initiated by ArcelorMi􀆩al
(“the Claimant”) against several companies that are part of the XPENG group ("the Defendants").
On 23 January 2025, POSCO (“the Applicant”), a member of the public, filed an application via CMS
pursuant to Rule262-1 b) RoP for inspection of the wri􀆩en pleadings and evidence lodged at the
Court in the main proceedings (“the Application”).
Following a Preliminary Order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur on 28 January 2025 the par􀆟es pro-vided
their comments to the Court on 4 February 2025.
In support of its request, the Applicant states that:
- the Claimant and the Applicant are both active in the field of steel manufacturing, with a par􀆟c-
ular focus on steel manufacturing for the automotive industry and both par􀆟es are currently en-
gaged in several opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO).
- the Applicant has filed an opposition against the claimant’s European Patent EP 3 290 200, which
is the patent at issue in the infringement proceedings ACT_54607/2024.
- the opposi􀆟on proceedings regarding EP 3 290 200 are now accelerated ex officio at the appeal
stage because of the parallel infringement proceedings before the UPC and that the validity discus-
sion of the patent at issue in the pending opposi􀆟on appeal proceedings before the EPO is depend-
ent on the interpretation of multiple claim features.
The Applicant requires access to written pleadings and evidence of the infringement case to ana-
lyse the Claimant’s claim interpretation in the pending infringement proceedings before the UPC,
which is mandatory pursuant to Rule 13.1n RoP, and which is immediately relevant for the validity
discussion in the parallel opposition appeal case before the EP’200.
In their comments in reply to the present Application, the Defendants (XPENG’s companies) leave
the decision on whether to allow or not POSCO’s access request for the Court’s discre􀆟on.
ARCELORMITTAL requests that POSCO’s application to access the register be refused. The Claimant
contests the Application for the following reasons:
1) a lack of direct interest in the subject matter of the proceedings, arguing that:
- the main ac􀆟on at the UPC level is an infringement action,
- for now, there is no discussion on the validity of EP’200,
-contrary to POSCO’s allegations, there is thus no discussion about the interpreta􀆟on of the fea-tures
of EP’200,
-the wri􀆩en pleadings and the evidence solely relate to a product considered by ARCELORMITTAL
as infringing EP’200, not to the validity of the patent.
2) a lack of a “reasoned request”, arguing that, in the case at hand, the procedure has not ended,
and that POSCO has no direct interest in the subject ma􀆩er of the proceedings.
In the Claimant’s view, the Court should weigh in favour of refusing access to the register, taking
into account the following:
- The interest of the parties, i.e. the protection of the confidentiality of the statement of claims and
the documents cited in support that contain laboratory analysis, technical documents, bailiff re-
ports etc.; all related to the demonstration of the infringement).
- The interest of Justice, i.e. the efficiency of the proceedings that will be slowed down if the re-
quest is granted, and terminating the proceedings will take more time.
-The interest of the public, i.e. access to documents in an infringement action is not in the public’s
interest.
- The interest of public order, i.e. the integrity of the proceedings and disputing abusive claims that
serve no legi􀆟mate purpose but only delay proceedings.
Legal Framework
Ar􀆟cle 45 UPCA – Public proceedings:
The proceedings shall be open to the public unless the Court decides to make them confiden􀆟al, to
the extent necessary, in the interest of one of the par􀆟es or other affected persons, or in the general
interest of jus􀆟ce or public order.
Rule 262 – Public access to the register:
1. Without prejudice to Ar􀆟cles 58 and 60(1) of the Agreement and subject to Rules 190.1, 194.5,
196.1, 197.4, 199.1, 207.7, 209.4, 315.2 and 365.2, and following, where applicable, redaction of
personal data within the meaning of Regula􀆟on (EU) 2016/679 and confidential information ac-cording
to paragraph 2
(b) wri􀆩en pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court and recorded by the Registry shall be avail-able
to the public upon reasoned request to the Registry; the decision is taken by the judge-rappor-
teur a􀅌er consulting the parties.
Grounds
A reasoned request is a concrete, verifiable and legi􀆟mate reason. The UPC Munich Central Division
has rightly stated: “To ensure the proper balance of interests, the applicant of a R.262.1(b) request
must set out the reasons why he has an interest to access. It follows that ‘reasoned request’ means
a request that not only specify the scope but also the purpose and why the informa􀆟on requested
is necessary to that aim”. (UPC_CFI_1/2023 – 20/09/23 – CD Munich – Sanofi v Amgen)
In assessing the applica􀆟on based on R 262-1 RoP, the Judge-Rapporteur must balance the appli-cant's
interest as explained in its applica􀆟on against the principle of the integrity of the infringe-
ment proceedings brought by the Claimant against its compe􀆟tor XPENG involving commercial and
technical information that may fall within the scope of trade secrets.
In the present application, POSCO's request is clearly explained; it is made to pursue a procedural
strategy in the context of the EPO's parallel proceedings, which deal solely with the validity of the
patent as granted, which is the same as that on which the infringement ac􀆟on before this Division
is based.
The Applicant referred to an order of the UPC Paris Central Division, which had been seized by an
ac􀆟on for revocation, according to which the existence of opposition proceedings before the EPO,
in which the applicant was involved, made access to the documents legi􀆟mate. (CD Paris,
ACT_n°571808/2023-UPC number: UPC_CFI_316/2023)
ARCELORMITTAL has correctly noted in its writien comments that the current ac􀆟on is not a revo-
ca􀆟on ac􀆟on but rather an infringement action that is s􀆟ll in its early stages. Only the Statement
of Claim (SoC) has been filed, while the Statement of Defence (SoD), along with a poten􀆟al coun-
terclaim for revoca􀆟on, has yet to be submitied. Therefore, there is currently no challenge to the
validity of the patent, and no discussions on this ma􀆩er have occurred between the par􀆟es. At this
stage, no documents have been exchanged that would reveal the content of any debate regarding
the validity of the patent—such as a counterclaim and the response to it, possibly including a re-quest
for amendments to the patent.

However, the Applicant expresses interest in the explanations provided by the Claimant in its State-
ment of Claim regarding the interpretation of the claims that underpin the infringement ac􀆟on.
The Court notes that the interpretation of claims proposed by a party in an infringement ac􀆟on
should be consistent with the interpretation used in a revocation ac􀆟on. This principle was high-lighted
by the UPC Court of Appeal when establishing the standard for patent interpreta􀆟on
(UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_1/2024). The UPC Court of Appeal stated: “In applying these
principles, the goal is to ensure adequate protection for the patent holder while providing sufficient
legal certainty for third par􀆟es. These principles for interpreting a patent claim are applicable to
both the assessment of infringement and the validity of a European patent.”
Consequently, the Applicant demonstrates a legitimate interest in having access to the statement
of claim and the related exhibits, provided that these exhibits are not covered by a confidentiality
order, such as Exhibit 8, which is the subject of a confidentiality order dated 18/02/2025 (Order nº
ORD_8266/2025 in Ac􀆟on Nº: ACT_54607/2024) and which, in any event, has no bearing on the
scope of protection defined by the applicant for infringement based on its patent EP’200.
The other written pleadings, which relate to procedural matiers (alignment of service dates and
change of languages), do not concern the claim construction of the patent in suit.
Considering these elements, the Judge-rapporteur orders that:
- POSCO is granted access to the following written pleadings and evidence submitted by the Claim-
ant as currently contained in the CMS in action UPC_ CFI_583/2024:
-the statement of claim submitted by ARCELORMITTAL,
-and the exhibits supporting the statement of claim, except for Exhibit 8, which is en􀆟rely
protected by a confidentiality order (Order nº ORD_8266/2025 in Ac􀆟on Nº: ACT_54607/2024)
- This order may be reviewed according to R. 333 RoP.
Issued in Paris, on 19 February 2025.
C. Lignieres, judge-rapporteur.

ORDER DETAILS
Order nº ORD_8329/2025 in Action Nº: ACT_54607/2024
UPC nº : UPC_CFI_583/2024
Action Type: Infringement Action
Related proceeding n°: 3790/2025
Application Type: APPLICATION_ROP262_1_b