UPC_CFI_282/2026 – Boehringer v Zentiva

Expert Commentary

Public access to the file Facts 1. Gowling, a law firm based in the United Kingdom, requested access to numerous documents in the Boehringer v Zentiva case, including “all exhibits, in particular exhibits evidencing the threat of infringement or actual infringement and exhibits relevant to the balance of interest”. 2. The respondents provided copies of the redacted pleadings and requested protection of confidential information (R. 262.2 RoP). 3. Zentiva argued moreover that there was no justification for the broad access required. The Court 1. Gowling stated that its interest was “to gain a better understanding how the parties and the Court conducted the proceedings and ultimately reached the decision in view of the arguments brought forward by the parties and the evidence relied upon in the context of preliminary injunction proceedings.” That is a sufficient interest. 2. However, the request is not sufficiently substantiated as regards the exhibits, because it did not specify the evidence sought and would require the Court itself to search for and select the documents. 3. Zentiva further argued that the case is still pending on appeal. That argument is incorrect, as the Court of Appeal has already decided otherwise. 4. Zentiva argued that confidentiality prevented disclosure of the documents. Also that argument has no merit, as confidentiality can be protected under R. 262.1 RoP. 5. Access granted with respect to the specified documents identified in the request. Comment 1. By now, parties should know how to formulate a request for access and what objection you can raise against such request. 2. Gowling and Zentiva apparently did not read the decision of the Court of Appeal already cited in this decision by the JR. 3. A reminder for representatives: during the litigation, make sure that you request confidentiality under R. 262A RoP if you want to prevent public access after the case at first instance has been terminated. If you do not do so, a request under R. 262.2 RoP is likely to be refused if a member of the public asks for access and argues that you are not entitled to confidentiality.

Full Decision Text

1 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 6 March 2026 APPLICANT Gowling WLG, 38 avenue de l'Opéra, 75002, Paris, FR represented by Marianne SCHAFFNER RESPONDENTS BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH Binger Straße 173 - D-55216 - Ingelheim am Rhein Germany represented by Ms. Joana Catarina Piriquito Santos Ms. Sara Nazaré Ms. Beatriz Lima (NLP - NAZARÉ, LIMA, PIRIQUITO SANTOS & ASSOCIADOS SOCIEDADE DE ADVOGADOS) ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA Alameda Fernão Lopes, n.º 16-A, 8.º A - 1495-190 – Algés Portugal represented by Ms. Patrícia Paias LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION UPC CFI 282/2026 2 Ms. Daniela Guimarães (ANTAS DA CUNHA ECIJA) DECIDING JUDGE: This order was issued by Judge Rute Lopes acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT: Access to the public – R. 262.1.b RoP SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND REQUEST 1 Under R. 262.1(b) RoP, the Applicant requested access to the following documents and pleadings filed in the preliminary injunction proceedings UPC CFI 41/2025 opposing BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH (hereinafter Boehringer) and ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA (hereinafter Zentiva), in which a final order was issued on 8 May 2025: - "Application for provisional measures" filed by Boehringer on 21 January 2025; - "Application for provisional measures" filed by Boehringer on 23 January 2025; - "Response to the request for amendments" filed on 23 January 2025; - "Objection provisional measures application" filed on 3 March 2025; - "Request remit to Objection filed 03.03.25", filed on 7 March 2025; - "Reply to the Objection" filed by Boehringer on 12 March 2025; - "Rejoinder" filed by Zentiva on 21 March 2025; - "Generic Procedural Application" filed on 28 March 2025; - "Application for Written Witnesses Statements" filed on 31 March 2025; - "Application – written" filed on 31 March 2025; - "BI reply to Zentiva evidence submission" filed by Boehringer on 4 April 2025 (4 different documents); - "Applicant's note award of costs" filed by Boehringer on 7 April 2025; - "Response under Order of April 2, 2025" filed on 7 April 2025; 3 - "Response under App 15653.2025 of April 2, 2025" filed on 7 April 2025; - "Generic Procedural Application" filed on 8 April 2025; - "Response under order April 2, 2025" filed on 10 April 2025; - "Response under APP15653.2025" filed on 10 April 2025; - All exhibits, in particular: o Exhibits evidencing the threat of infringement or actual infringement; o Exhibits relevant to the balance of interest. 2 The Applicant argued that it has a general interest in the information to gain a better understanding of how the parties and the court conducted the proceedings and how the decision was reached, in view of the arguments and evidence brought forward by the parties. Such understanding is important for the Applicant, a firm of UPC representatives, to provide professional and expert advice to its clients, thereby benefiting both the court and its users. 3 Respondent Boehringer did not object, but requested that part of the information contained in the written pleadings and exhibits listed by the Applicant be kept confidential as it includes the personal information of Boehringer’s employees and directors; sensitive financial information related to Boehringer’s commercial activity; projected market erosion in case of launch of a generic medicine containing nintedanib in the Portuguese market; and Boehringer’s foreseeable representation costs in the referred proceedings. 4 Respondent Zentiva objected to the Applicant’s request, arguing that the main action is still pending. Hence, the arguments underlying the cited Court of Appeal decision in Ocado v Autostore are not applicable. As further arguments, Zentiva stated that the documents include confidential information and that the Applicant has not presented any justification for the broad access required. 5 In the alternative, Zentiva submitted that should the Court decide to grant access to the written pleadings and evidence, such access should be limited to duly redacted versions of the documents, with confidential business information, litigation strategies, and sensitive legal assessments being redacted. 6 Both respondents have provided copies of the redacted pleadings, in accordance with R. 262.2 RoP. 7 The Applicant responded, requesting that Zentiva’s objection be dismissed. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 8 The general principle regarding publicity of proceedings, as laid down in Art. 10 and 45 UPCA, is that proceedings shall be open to the public, unless the court decides to make them confidential, to the extent necessary, to protect the interests of the parties, other persons, the interests of 4 justice, and public order. These interests include the protection of confidential information and personal data, but are not limited thereto. 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, and public order is at stake, e.g., when a request is abusive or security interests are at stake – CoA, 10 April 2024, Ocado vs Autostore, PC CoA 404/2023 (mn. 43). 9 Following that principle, R. 262.1(b) RoP states that the written pleadings and evidence lodged at the court and recorded by the registry shall be available to the public upon a reasoned request to the registry. This request provides the necessary information allowing the judge-rapporteur to perform the balancing of interests required by Article 45 UPCA (CoA, 10 April 2024, Ocado vs Autostore, mn. 44). In this context, the reasoned request must clearly state the purpose of the request and explain why access to the specific documents is necessary for that purpose. 10 A member of the public generally has an interest that written pleadings and evidence are made available. Such interest usually arises after a decision is rendered as it needs to be understood and scrutinised in light of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties – CoA, 9 January 2024, Abbot vs Powel Gilbert, UPC CoA 480/2024 (mn. 12, 13). 11 Once the proceedings have come to an end by a decision of the court, the balance of the interests laid down in Art 45 UPCA is generally in favour of the granting of access (CoA, 19 December 2025, UPC CoA 523/2024, Navigator vs Sumi, mn. 15 and CoA, 17 February 2026, UPC CoA 926/2025, TP-Link vs Netgea, mn. 16). A case in which a decision has been rendered no longer needs to protect the integrity of the proceedings, as such protection, relevant during proceedings, exists to ensure that the court decides impartially and independently, without influence or interference from external parties in the public domain. 12 Parties must be consulted on the application. Under R. 262.2 RoP, they may request that certain information in written pleadings or evidence concerning trade secrets and company-related information be kept confidential, providing specific reasons for the request. If such a restriction on access is requested, the member of the public may only be granted access to the redacted version, without prejudice to the member of the public's right to request, with justification, full access (R. 262.3 RoP). But, if such a restriction of access is not requested, or not duly reasoned according to R. 262.2 RoP, then full access must be granted. Personal information is always protected under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 regardless of any request (CoA, 17 February 2026, UPC CoA 926/2025, TP-Link vs Netgear, mn. 17, 18). Reasoned interest 13 Zentiva is not right in arguing that the Applicant’s request is too general and lacks a genuine, concrete justification, as the Court finds that the request from the Applicant to access the proceedings, to gain a better understanding how the parties and the court conducted the proceedings and ultimately reached the decision in view of the arguments brought forward by the parties and the evidence relied upon in the context of preliminary injunction proceedings, is within the understanding of the Court of Appeal's decisions already mentioned. A member of the public has a general interest in having access to the proceedings, to scrutinise a decision in light of the parties' arguments. 5 14 However, regarding evidence, the Court finds the request not sufficiently substantiated, as the Applicant did not specify which pieces of evidence it seeks to obtain. The request is formulated in general terms: access to evidence of the threat of infringement or actual infringement, as well as the balance of interests. Such a general request would require the Court to search and select documents based on relevance criteria set up by the requesting party. It is therefore not admissible, as the Court of Appeal decided (CoA, 24 February 2026, Boehringer vs Zentiva). Balance of interests 15 The Applicant requests access to a case where a final decision has been rendered, and that is closed. In such a case, as said, the interests laid down in Art 45 UPCA are properly balanced and, unless relevant reasons arise, access should be granted. 16 To justify not granting access, Zentiva argued that the proceedings the Applicant wants to access are provisional, and that the main proceedings are still pending. This argument cannot be followed. As the Court of Appeal has decided (see Decision from 9 January 2024, above cited, mn. 19), there is no reason to depart from the principles underlying access if the rendered order concerns an application for provisional measures. The same principles apply regardless of whether, after the granting of provisional measures, proceedings on the merits are initiated within the time limits outlined in R. 213.1 RoP. 17 Zentiva also argued, again without merit, that the request does not outweigh the specific and substantial confidentiality interests of the parties. Zentiva did not present any argument explaining why the confidentiality regime under R. 262.2 RoP does not sufficiently protect its interests, nor why protecting confidential information in this case should outweigh the principle of public access. The Court finds that the confidentiality interests of the parties are duly protected upon the interested party's request under R. 262.2 RoP. Scope and confidentiality 18 Regarding the list of documents that the Applicant requested access to, respondents Boehringer and Zentiva (in this case, as an alternative request) provided copies of the said documents with the relevant parts redacted (R. 262.2), to protect the confidentiality of personal, financial, and commercial information. The Court agrees with such restrictions. 19 For these reasons, the Applicant is granted access to the documents specified in its request, which are to be accessed in the redacted versions presented by the respondents and, where necessary, also in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ORDER 1. The Applicant is given access to the documents specifically identified in its request, after anonymisation by the Registry to protect personal data, as follows: 6 - "Application for provisional measures" filed by Boehringer on 21 January 2025 – in the redacted version provided by Boehringer; - "Application for provisional measures" filed by Boehringer on 23 January 2025 - in the redacted version provided by Boehringer; - "Response to the request for amendments" filed on 23 January 2025; - "Objection provisional measures application" filed on 3 March 2025 - in the redacted version provided by Boehringer and Zentiva; - "Request remit to Objection filed 03.03.25", filed on 7 March 2025; - "Reply to the Objection" filed by Boehringer on 12 March 2025 - in the redacted version provided by Boehringer; - "Rejoinder" filed by Zentiva on 21 March 2025 - in the redacted version provided by Zentiva; - "Generic Procedural Application" filed on 28 March 2025; - "Application for Written Witnesses Statements" filed on 31 March 2025 - in the redacted version provided by Boehringer; - "Application – written" filed on 31 March 2025; - "BI reply to Zentiva evidence submission" filed by Boehringer on 4 April 2025 (4 different documents); - "Applicant's note award of costs" filed by Boehringer on 7 April 2025 - in the redacted version provided by Boehringer; - "Response under Order of April 2, 2025" filed on 7 April 2025; - "Response under App 15653.2025 of April 2, 2025" filed on 7 April 2025 - - in the redacted version provided by Boehringer; - "Generic Procedural Application" filed on 8 April 2025; - "Response under order April 2, 2025" filed on 10 April 2025 - in the redacted version provided by Zentiva; 7 - "Response under APP15653.2025" filed on 10 April 2025; 2. The requested access to the exhibits is dismissed. This order may be reviewed according to R. 333 RoP.

Key Holdings

• A general interest in understanding court proceedings is sufficient for public access.
• Confidentiality can be protected under R. 262.1 RoP and is not a general bar to access.
• Parties must proactively request confidentiality under R. 262A RoP during litigation to prevent public access later.
• Requests for access to exhibits must be sufficiently substantiated and specific.

Tags

• Confidentiality
• Exhibits
• Public Access
• Rules of Procedure

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_757/2024_Apr04_Bankruptcy – Ericsson v Asustek (Bankruptcy)
• UPC_CFI_41/2025 – Boehringer v Zentiva
• UPC_CFI_697/2024_Apr04_Costs – Ericsson v Asustek (Costs)
• UPC_CFI_1920/2025 – Illumina v Element
• UPC_CFI_850/2026 – Transsion v Ericsson