UPC_CFI_487/2023_July31 – Taylor Wessing v NEC/TCL
- Court
- Local Division Munich
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Request for public access The Court The Court grants an extension of the deadline for submitting comments with respect to the request for public access to 12 August. The reason for the extension of the deadline is the absence of the claimant’s representatives. The Court remarks that certain requests for confidentiality according to R.262.2 RoP have been made when the written statement was submitted and have been granted and adds: “Protection of confidential information must be requested when the respective written submission and exhibits are filed. Subsequent correction or review of the written submissions and exhibits filed is not possible in the pending application”. Comment 1. As said before, unavailability of representatives (other than for exceptional circumstances) should not be a ground for extension (let alone as the result of a telephone call between the judge and the representative). In a law firm, not all representatives should be absent at the same time. Now in this case, this will not lead to delay of the main proceedings, and the Court cites also the vacation of the Court, and as the Court does not have 10 or 15 colleagues who can replace, I have more understanding for the vacation of the Court. 2. I disagree with the Court that you have to ask for confidentiality under R. 262 RoP at the time of filing and if granted, cannot later make any requests. Indeed, that may be the most practical solution, certainly if there is already a request for application of R. 262A RoP. However, the system of R. 262 RoP is, in my opinion, different. In principle, a party does not have to ask during filing for confidentiality but will be able to do so after a request by a member of the public is made. He then gets (see R. 262.2 RoP) two weeks to make a request for confidentiality. Now if he has already asked for confidentiality during filing (e.g., together with a R. 262A RoP request) for certain paragraphs in a submission and that request is granted, I can understand a decision that he cannot again ask for further confidentiality with respect to the same document. However, I cannot see why he would be prevented from exercising his right under R. 262.2 RoP with respect to other documents which have not been already ruled to be confidential. This is also a Rule that should maybe be revised in the sense that you have to ask for confidentiality at the time of filing.
Full Decision Text
1 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 31 July 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, Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_487/2023 2 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 R 262.1 (b) RoP – Invitation to comment – R 9.3 RoP – Time extension REASONS OF THE ORDER The request for an extension of the deadline of 30 July 2025 is granted in accordance with Rule 9.3 (a) RoP insofar as the deadline for submitting comments is extended until 12 August 2025. This date takes into account the upcoming holidays of the court. The reason for the extension of the deadline is the absence of the Claimant's representatives. In order to ensure that the parties are not subject to different time limits in these proceedings, the newly set deadline applies equally to both parties. As a precautionary measure, please note the following: In the cases in which the Applicant wishes to have access, the parties involved requested that a number of information be treated 3 as confidential, in accordance with Rule 262.2 RoP, when submitting their written statements and exhibits. These requests have been granted. As the Applicant has only filed an application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, access can only initially be granted to the redacted versions sub- mitted by the parties with their written submissions and exhibits, in which the confidential in- formation has been blacked out. Renewed applications for protection of confidentiality with regard to the written submissions and exhibits filed within the framework of a Rule 262.1 b application are not permitted. Protection of confidential information must be requested when the respective written submission and exhibits are filed. However, subsequent correction or review of the written submissions and exhibits filed is not possible in the pending application. ORDER The deadline for comments on the request pursuant to Rule 262.1 (b) RoP is extended for both parties until 12 August 2025. ORDER DETAILS Order no. ORD_34102/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_595922/2023 UPC number: UPC_CFI_487/2023 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: 34041/2025 Application Type: Generic procedural Application
Key Holdings
- Deadline extension granted due to representative absence/court vacation.
- Confidentiality requests (R. 262.2) must be made at time of filing; subsequent correction denied.
Tags
- Added Matter
- Confidentiality
- Public Access