Local Division Munich
UPC_CFI_487/2023

Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 26 August 2025

APPLICANT:
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, Isartor 8, 80331 Munich, Germany,
represented by: Dr. Jan Phillip Rektorschek, Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, Isartor 8, 80331
Munich, Germany.

CLAIMANT:
NEC Corporation, 7-1 Shiba 5-chome Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8001, Japan, represented by its
President and Chief Executive Officer Mr. Takayuki Morita, ibid,
represented by: Dr. Müller, Dr. Henke, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB
Patent attorneys, attorneys at law, Bohnenstraße 4, 20457 Hamburg.

DEFENDANTS:
1. TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Am Seestern 4, 40547 Düsseldorf, represented by the
general partner TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, which in turn is represented by its
managing directors, ibid,
2. TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., 22/F, TCL Technology Building, 17 Huifeng 3rd Road,
Huizhou, 516000 Guangdong, China, represented by its directors, ibid,
3. TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, Am Seestern 4, 40547 Düsseldorf, Germany, represented
by its managing directors, ibid,
4. TCT Mobile Europe SAS, 55 Avenue des Champs Pierreux, 92000 Nanterre, France,
represented by its directors, ibid,
5. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., 5/F, Building 22E, Science Park East
Avenue, Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin, Hong Kong, represented by its directors, ibid,
6. TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, ul. A. Mickiewicza 31/41 96-300 Zyrardow, Poland,
represented by its managing directors, ibid,
7. TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., 13/F TCL Tower Tai Chung Road Tsuen Wan, New
Territories, Hong Kong, represented by its directors, ibid.
Defendants 1) to 6) represented by: Dr. Nack, Dr. Gajeck, Noerr
Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB, Brienner Str. 28,
80333 Munich, Germany.

INTERVENER:
Access Advance LLC, 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 21400, Boston, MA 02114, USA,
represented by: Dr. Henke, Bardehle Pagenberg Partnership mbB, Bohnenstraße 4,
20457 Hamburg.

PATENT AT ISSUE
European patent no° EP 2 645 714

PANEL/DIVISION
Panel 2 of the Local Division Munich

DECIDING JUDGE
This order has been issued by Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß as Judge-Rapporteur.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Rule 262.1 (b) RoP

SUMMARY OF FACTS
1 The Claimant brought legal action against the Defendants for infringement of the patent at
issue (ACT_595922/2023 UPC_CFI_487/2023). The Defendants, among other things,
argued that the patent at issue lacked validity and filed a counterclaim for revocation
(CC_40351/2024 UPC_CFI_397/2024).
2 The proceedings were terminated when the Parties applied for leave to withdraw the claim
and counterclaim, which was granted by Decisions of 15 January 2025 and 24 January
2025, respectively.
3 The Applicant is a law firm seeking access to the register.

REQUESTS
4 The Applicant requests pursuant to R. 262.1 (b) RoP for access to written pleadings and
evidence listed below, in case of confidential documents, only the redacted versions:
5 The Claimant requests that Applicant´s Request be dismissed.
6 In the alternative, and with regard to the confidentiality orders pursuant to R. 262A RoP of
14.08.2024, rectified by order of 16.08.2024 (ORD_41183/2024, ORD_47400/2024), of
14.08.2024, rectified by order of 16.08.2024 (ORD_41186/2024, ORD_47402/2024), of
23.09.2024 (ORD_47060/2024) and the confidentiality request pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP
filed by Claimant on 12.08.2025, the Claimant requests:
The documents including confidential information are made accessible in redacted
version only.
This applies with regard to the filings of the Claimant to the following submissions, for
which redacted versions have been filed with the parallel request for confidentiality
pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP:

1. A169308VLU22 Complaint - NEC-TCL_signiert.pdf - Pleading –
English
2. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03a - NEC (HEVC Advance 27.5.2016
EN).PDF - Exhibit - English
3. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03b - NEC (HEVC Advance 22.09.2016
EN).PDF - Exhibit - English
4. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03c - NEC (HEVC Advance 25.09.2017
EN).PDF - Exhibit – English
5. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03d - NEC (Lowenstein Sandler).PDF –
Exhibit - English
6. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03e - NEC (TCL - E-Mail 23.7.2018).PDF
- Exhibit - English
7. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03f - NEC (HEVC Advance - E-Mail
2.10.2018).PDF - Exhibit - English
8. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03g - NEC (Access Advance - E-Mail
26.10.2020).PDF - Exhibit - English
9. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03h - NEC (Access Advance E-Mail an
TCL Com).PDF - Exhibit – English
10. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03i - NEC (Standard-Lizenzvertrag).pdf -
Exhibit - English
11. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 03j - NEC (Access Advance E-Mail
Claimcharts). PDF - Exhibit – English
12. A169308VLU22 Exhibit BP 07 - NEC (Memo PRC Law KWM).pdf –
Exhibit – Englisch
13. A169308VLU22 Complaint – NEC-TCL_signiert ursprünglich eingereicht am 221223.pdf – Sonstiges – Englisch
14. A169308VLU22 Statement of claim – NEC_signiert.pdf – Schriftsatz - Englisch
7 In the event that the Court rejects the above requests, the Claimant requests that leave
for appeal be granted and the appeal having suspensive effect.
8 The Defendants 1 to 6 request to reject the Applicant´s Request.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PARTIES (SUMMARY)
9 The Applicant submits that pursuant to Rule 262.1 (b) RoP written pleadings and evidence
filed with the Court and recorded by the Registry shall be made available to the public
upon a reasoned request. A reasoned request may clearly be based on educational
interests. In the case at hand, the underlying request is reasoned already because of the
Applicant’s position as a member of the public. The purpose of this request is inter alia to
gain a better understanding of the procedural developments and legal reasoning in the
ongoing proceedings. In particular, there is a general interest in how the UPC and the
parties to proceedings using the UPC as venue for infringement and counterclaims
interpret patent claims and assess potentially relevant prior art.
10 Insofar as the Court may recognize an interest of the parties regarding confidential
information in the written pleadings and evidence, the Applicant would agree to obtain only
access to the redacted versions of the respective documents.

11 In the Claimant’s opinion, Applicant has not lodged a reasoned request within the meaning
of Rule 262.1(b) RoP. It has not specified the purpose of the request and explained why
access to the specified documents is needed for that purpose. Applicant has solely
expressed to have a professional or educational interest in the documents on file, but not
any concrete and verifiable reasons. Notably, the reason provided does not even relate to
the present proceedings. The proceedings, namely the infringement action, the
counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer, were declared
closed after the parties had withdrawn their claims. Thus, there is no “ongoing
proceedings”. Furthermore, the actions were withdrawn during the written procedure, prior
to any decision on the merits. The Court did not “interpret patent claims and assess […]
prior art”, with the consequence that there is evidently no basis for Applicant’s stated
purpose of obtaining better understanding of the Court’s practice in this regard. Besides
that, there was no decision rendered. There is no decision in the present case from which
a general interest to scrutinize the Court could arise.
12 Ultimately, the Claimant cannot help feeling that the purpose provided with the request is
just pretexted and that Applicant is hiding its actual interest. This is supported by the
temporal context of the request: Claimant has recently filed further complaints based on
the patent in suit and on EP 3 057 321 against several defendants with the UPC. Some of
the Statements of claim are already served, but no UPC representative has yet announced
representation of the defendants in these proceedings. According to the Claimant it seems
to be a “very special coincidence” that it is precisely in the present proceedings and the
parallel one based on EP 3 057 321 in all the UPC cases, Applicant, a law firm, out of a
sudden wants to have access to the documents and educate itself. It should go without
saying that a falsely reasoned request cannot serve as a basis for access to the register.
13 Furthermore, in the opinion of the Claimant the request is inadmissibly broad as it also
extends to documents that cannot be considered as written pleading and evidence and to
documents that are not related to the alleged purpose of the request. Only submissions
relating to the merits of the proceedings can be considered as “written pleadings and
evidence”. In addition, the request is to be rejected regarding any (part of) document that
relates to the FRAND-negotiations between the parties and/or Defendants and the
Intervener. Because Applicant specifies only an alleged interest in the aspects of claim
interpretation and assessment of prior art.
14 The Claimant further considers that the weighing of interests speaks clearly for a rejection
of the request. As there was no decision rendered in the present proceedings, there is
evidently no general interest in access to the written pleadings and evidence in order to
better understand the decision. Also, there is no public interest in access to the register if
a member of the public abusively uses the request according to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, more
specifically if it is filed (as it seems to be the case here) for the mere exploitation of
information by falsely motivating the request and thus hiding to act as a straw man. In this
case, the parties’ interest prevails in safeguarding their copyright protected submissions
and strategic aspects of the case from the public, which arguments have due to a lack of
oral hearing or rendered decision not been subject to public debate and will also not be
subject of public debate in future.
15 Finally, there is according to the Claimant no public interest to get access to confidential
information and personal data. It refers to the extensive confidentiality orders pursuant to
Rule 262A RoP and to Claimant’s pending confidentiality request pursuant to Rule 262.2
RoP.

16 The Defendants 1 to 6 are of the opinion that the request is insufficiently substantiated and
must be rejected. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any concrete, legitimate or
verifiable interest in accessing the requested documents.
17 Applicant seeks access to a considerable number of pleadings and exhibits, including
extensive documentation, irrespective of their particular relevance or materiality. Such an
undifferentiated, blanket request risks an abuse or undue extension of the principle of
public access in the absence of any demonstrated concrete necessity.
18 It remains obscure why Applicant, a law firm, should be granted access, considering in
particular that no oral hearing, substantive court order or decision has been rendered in
the present proceedings. The case files will therefore not provide any insights into the
procedure before the UPC, its practice and legal reasoning, but would only provide the
Applicant with access to the register for its own, undisclosed purposes. In the event that
the Judge-Rapporteur were to consider granting access, such access should be strictly
limited to what is reasonably necessary regarding the alleged “interest”.

REASONS
19 The application is admissible and largely successful. Pursuant to Rule 262.1 (b) RoP, the
Applicant may request access to written pleadings and evidence to the extent specified in
the operative part of this Order.
1.
20 As a member of the public, the Applicant has submitted a reasoned request within the
meaning of Rule 262.1 (b) RoP.
a)
21 A well-founded application in this sense is an request which not only specifies the written
pleadings and evidences to which access is sought, but also states the purpose of the
application and explains why access to the specified documents is necessary for that
purpose, thus providing all the information the Judge-rapporteur needs to carry out the
necessary balancing of interests (Court of Appeal, Order of 10.04.2024,
UPC_CoA_404/2023 – Ocado/Autostore; Order of 09.01.2025, UPC_CoA_480/2024,
Powell Gilbert/Abbott; LD Düsseldorf, Order of 17.06.2025, UPC_CFI_177/2023 –
Slavik/MyStromer). Incidentally, this is (only) a formal requirement to which no increased
substantive requirements are to be applied (see LD Munich, Order of 20.12.2024,
UPC_CFI_342/2024 – Harting/Phoenix; LD Munich, Order of 29.07.2025,
UPC_CFI_399/2023 – Vossius/Nokia).
b)
22 The Applicant's application meets these requirements. Even though the statement of
grounds is brief and partly provided with text modules, the Applicant has not only specified
the proceedings, written pleadings and evidence it wishes to inspect, but has also
explained that it has a general interest in inspecting the files as part of the public. Based
on the case law of the Court of Appeal, no more can be required of the Applicant (see
Court of Appeal, Order of 10.04.2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023 – Ocado/Autostore; Order of
09.01.2025, UPC_CoA_480/2024, Powell Gilbert/Abbott; Order of 25.04.2025,
UPC_CoA_5/2025 – Nicoventures/Juul).
23 The level of detail required depends on the interest asserted and the time at which the
application is made. If the proceedings for which access to written pleadings and evidence
is requested have already been concluded, a lower level of reasoning is generally
sufficient, because in such cases a general interest in inspection is sufficient, whereas the
applicant must have special reasons or a more specific interest if it wishes to inspect the
written pleadings during ongoing proceedings (Court of Appeal, Order of 10.04.2024,
UPC_CoA_404/2023 – Ocado/Autostore; Order of 09.01.2025, UPC_CoA_480/2024,
Powell Gilbert/Abbott; Order of 25.04.2025, UPC_CoA_5/2025 – Nicoventures/Juul; LD
Düsseldorf, Order of 17.06.2025, UPC_CFI_177/2023 – Slavik/MyStromer; LD Munich,
Order of 29.07.2025, UPC_CFI_399/2023 – Vossius/Nokia; LD Munich, Order of
30.07.2025, UPC_CFI_208/2024 – Renault/Avago).
2.
24 The application is largely successful. The Applicant shall be granted access to the written
pleadings and evidence, whereby access shall be restricted to the redacted versions of
the written pleadings for reasons of confidentiality and whereby personal data shall be
redacted. However, insofar as the Applicant also listed orders of the Court and notifications
from the CMS in its request, this is not successful. These are not subject to Rule 262.1 (b)
RoP.
a)
25 When deciding on an application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of
the public in obtaining access to the requested documents must be weighed against those
referred to in Article 45 UPCA. These interests include the protection of confidential
information and personal data ('the interests of one of the parties or other affected parties')
but are not limited to these. The general interests of justice and public order must also be
considered. The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of
proceedings. Public order is at risk if an application is abusive or if security interests are
at stake, for example (Court of Appeal, Order of 10.04.2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023 –
Ocado/Autostore; Order of 09.01.2025, UPC_CoA_480/2024, Powell Gilbert/Abbott;
Order of 25.04.2025, UPC_CoA_5/2025 – Nicoventures/Juul; LD Munich, Order of
11.07.2025, UPC_CFI_399/2023 – Acer/Nokia; LD Munich, Order of 29.07.2025,
UPC_CFI_399/2023 – Vossius/Nokia; LD Munich, Order of 30.07.2025,
UPC_CFI_208/2024 – Renault/Avago).
26 Once the Court has issued a decision or order that concludes the initial proceedings, the
public generally has an interest in accessing the written pleadings and evidence. This
enables a better understanding of the decision in light of the arguments put forward by the
parties and the evidence relied upon. It also enables the Court to be monitored, which is
important for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary (Court of Appeal, Order of
10.04.2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023 – Ocado/Autostore; Order of 09.01.2025,
UPC_CoA_480/2024 – Powell Gilbert/Abbott; Order of 25.04.2025, UPC_CoA_5/2025 –
Nicoventures/Juul; CD Paris, Order of 14.10.2024, UPC_CFI_255/2023 – Meril/Edwards;
LD Düsseldorf, Order of 17.06.2025, UPC_CFI_177/2023 – Slavik/MyStromer; LD Munich,
Order of 11.07.2025, UPC_CFI_399/2023 – Acer/Nokia).
b)
27 Weighing up the interests in accordance with these principles shows that the Applicant
must be granted the requested access to the written pleadings and evidence to the extent
specified in the operative part.
28 Now that the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation between the Claimant
and the Defendants have been concluded, the Applicant has a general interest in
accessing the written pleadings and evidence, which outweighs the interests referred to in
Art. 45 UPCA. The Applicant has invoked this general interest. As a part of the public, it
requests access to the file. There are no grounds for refusing or fundamentally restricting
access. In particular, the application has not been made for abusive reasons.
29 Even if an application by a straw man or the concealment of the actual motives behind a
request for access to files were to be regarded as abuse, the Claimant's argument to that
effect does not prevail. Based on the facts presented, it cannot be proven that the Applicant
concealed its true motives and/or acted as a straw man. The Applicant has stated that it
is not registered as a representative of any UPC proceedings regarding the patent at issue
and would indicate this immediately in case of any change. There is no indication that this
statement is inaccurate. It should be mentioned for the sake of completeness that, if the
Applicant were to represent or advise a party out of court in relation to the patent in suit,
the interest in inspecting the file would increase rather than decrease.
30 Moreover, according to the Court of Appeal's case law, educational interests are regarded
as a legitimate reason for seeking access to files in closed proceedings, meaning the
applicant’s law firm may use the knowledge obtained for this purpose in connection with
the advice it provides to current or future clients.
31 Access to the written pleadings and evidence in the proceedings is generally permitted,
unless one of the parties has filed a request for confidentiality in accordance with Rule
262.2 RoP regarding specific information contained within them (see below). Therefore,
the Applicant must be given access to the pleadings, including the non-technical
submissions, with all their contents, subject to confidentiality protection. The fact that the
Applicant has asserted an interest in interpreting patent claims and assess potentially
relevant prior art does not mean that the general interest is restricted and that access to
information not directly related to this should be denied. Rather, this broader general
interest must be recognised independently and access to the complete pleadings and
evidence must be granted (LD Munich, Order of 11.07.2025, UPC_CFI_399/2023 –
Acer/Nokia).
32 The general interest in information, and thus access to the entire file, is not restricted by
the termination of proceedings through withdrawal of the action, or the absence of a
decision on the merits. Given the principle that the register and proceedings are public,
once the integrity of the proceedings is no longer at stake, the general public's interest in
accessing the pleadings and evidence will generally outweigh the parties interests,
resulting in access being granted (subject to the protection of personal data and
confidential information), even if no decision has been made on the merits, which is of
interest. Case files may still provide insight into how the Court handled the dispute and/or
serve other legitimate public interests, such as scientific and/or educational interests.
These interests are no longer outweighed by the integrity of the proceedings once they
have concluded (Court of Appeal, Order of 10.04.2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023 –
Ocado/Autostore; LD Munich, Order of 11.07.2025, UPC_CFI_399/2023 – Acer/Nokia).
c)
33 In the present case, access to the pleadings and evidence in the infringement and
revocation counterclaim proceedings cannot be granted without restriction. As the
Applicant is relying solely on Rule 262.1(b) RoP, applications for confidentiality under Rule
262.2 of the RoP must be considered. Additionally, pursuant to Art. 45 UPCA and Rule
262.1 RoP, the principles of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 must also be considered.
34 In the proceedings to which the Applicant seeks access, the parties requested that
numerous pieces of information be treated as confidential in accordance with Rule 262A
and 262.2 RoP when submitting their pleadings and appendices. The Applicant does not
dispute the confidentiality of this information. No application has been made under Rule
262.3 RoP. For this reason, access can only be granted to the redacted versions submitted
by the parties with their pleadings and appendices, in which the confidential information
has been blacked out.
35 This also applies to the fourteen pleadings in respect of which the Claimant made an
application under Rule 262.2 RoP in its statement of 12.08.2025, which indisputably
contain trade secrets or confidential information worthy of protection. According to Rule
262 RoP, written pleadings and evidence are only made available upon request in
accordance with Rule 262.1(b) RoP. If the parties to the proceedings have submitted a
request for confidentiality, either before or within the 14-day period under Rule 262.2(2)
RoP, the relevant information shall be excluded from access to the files, unless the person
seeking access submits a request under Rule 262.3 RoP. As no such request has been
made in this case, only the redacted versions of the parties’ submissions are to be made
available from the outset. The Applicant has not asserted anything to the contrary.
36 In these redacted versions of the written pleadings and evidence, personal data within the
meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 must also be redacted.
d)
37 Regarding the practical realisation of access to the files, the Applicant shall initially only
be provided with the written pleadings of the parties without the appendices or exhibits.
The redacting of personal data involves a certain amount of time and effort, which
precludes the timely availability of all appendices/exhibits, especially since there are
dozens of requests for access to files pending. After receiving the pleadings from the
Registry, the Applicant may inform the Court which specific appendices are of interest to
her after reading the written pleadings. In this respect, it can be assumed that the Applicant
is able to identify all appendices on the basis of the pleadings and that individual
appendices are already available to her or can be easily obtained from other sources.
Should the Applicant maintain its original request in its entirety, this will not be objected to.
However, a longer processing time is to be expected solely due to the examination of the
requirements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
38 In order to ensure that no confidential information is disclosed to the applicant, the
approach taken by other Local Divisions will be followed (LD Mannheim, Order of
26.03.2025, UPC_CFI_210/2023 – Ampersand/Panasonic; LD Düsseldorf, Order of
09.04.2025, UPC_CFI_135/2024 – Epson/Dolby) and instructing the parties to provide the
Court with the written pleadings and evidence to which the applicant is granted access in
a redacted version with confidential information removed. The Registry will provide the
parties with a secure data room where the files can be uploaded. In order to protect
confidential information, it should also be in the interests of the parties to compile and
make available these pleadings and evidence, insofar as access is granted, in a partially
redacted version.

ORDER
I. The Applicant is granted access to the following written pleadings and evidence re-
spective in their redacted versions, including respective appendices or exhibits in their
redacted version:
− 2024_07_17 Brief on NEC re missing documents
− A169308VLU22 Complaint - NEC-TCL_signiert.pdf - Pleading – English
− A169308VLU22 Complaint – NEC-TCL_signiert ursprünglich eingereicht am 221223.pdf – Sonstiges – Englisch
− A169308VLU22 Statement of claim – NEC_signiert.pdf – Schriftsatz –
Englisch
− Noerr_Statement_of_Defence_Counterclaim_FRAND_595922_2023_Def
endant_1 – Pleading-Englisch
− Noerr_Statement_of_Defence_Counterclaim_Technical Defendants
1_3_4_6_595922_2023 – Pleading - English
II. The further request is rejected.
III. Personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/678 contained in written
pleadings and evidence must be redacted.
IV. Due to the time and effort involved in redacting personal data, the Applicant will initially
only be provided with the written pleadings without appendices. After receiving the
written pleadings, the Applicant may request the exhibits/appendices to the written
pleadings that she still requires by emailing the Registry (Contact_Munich.Loc@uni-
fiedpatentcourt.org).

INSTRUCTION TO THE REGISTRY
The Applicant shall be granted access to the pleadings and evidence of the Claimant and the
Defendant in proceedings ACT_595922/2023 UPC_CFI_487/2023 and CC_40351/2024
UPC_CFI_397/2024. The written pleadings without appendices are to be provided first, fol-
lowed by the exhibits/appendices requested by the applicant upon request. Personal data
within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/678 contained in the pleadings and evidence must
be redacted.

ORDER DETAILS
Order no. ORD_33611/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_595922/2023
UPC number: UPC_CFI_487/2023
Action type: Infringement Action
Related proceeding no. Application No.: 33511/2025
Application Type: APPLICATION_ROP262_1_b

26.08.2025