Since the Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors in June 2023, it has fundamentally reshaped the European patent litigation landscape. By offering a centralized forum for disputes relating to traditional European Patents and Unitary Patents, the UPC promises efficiency, consistency and greater legal certainty with pan-European effect.
But with this new system comes an important question: how open should UPC proceedings be to the public?
How Access Works Today
At present, UPC decisions and orders are published as a matter of course. Access to written pleadings and evidence, however, is handled differently. Under Rule 262.1(b) of the UPC Rules of Procedure, anyone seeking access to written pleadings and evidence must submit a “reasoned request”. The judge-rapporteur then decides after consulting the parties.
In assessing requests for access to written pleadings and evidence, the UPC distinguishes between ongoing proceedings and concluded proceedings (see further details in the Court of Appeal decision on April 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023)).
Ongoing proceedings
For ongoing cases, the threshold for access is deliberately high. Access is generally granted only where the requester can demonstrate a direct legitimate interest, such as involvement in parallel EPO opposition proceedings. This stricter approach aims to protect the integrity and independence of ongoing proceedings and to prevent external influence.
Concluded proceedings
For concluded proceedings, however, the bar is significantly lower. Once a case has ended, the risk of interference is significantly reduced and the public interest—such as transparency, legal education and predictability—comes to the forefront. In principle, a general interest should be sufficient to justify access.
In practice, however, even access to concluded cases has proven far from straightforward.
The Main Practical Obstacles
Three issues stand out:
- Mandatory representation: Anyone requesting access must be represented by a UPC-qualified representative. Self-representation is not allowed, even for lawyers or patent attorneys (see further details in the Court of Appeal decision on February 2025 (UPC_CoA_563/2024)).
- Costs: While recent case law suggests applicants should not bear the parties’ legal costs concerning requests for access to written proceedings and evidence, the need for representation still creates a financial barrier that may discourage transparency.
- Delays: Access requests can take many months—and in some cases over a year—especially where parties object. This undermines the practical value of access, even in cases where it is ultimately granted.
The Proposal: Default Access for Concluded Cases
A more transparent and practical approach could be to grant public access by default to written pleadings and evidence in concluded cases—at least for UPC representatives. It might even be beneficial to allow public access to documents by default, without requiring formal representation.
Parties would retain the right to request confidentiality under Rule 262.2, provided they justify it and submit a redacted version for public disclosure.
The Court would continue to review confidentiality claims, but access to non-confidential material could be granted without delay.
This approach would reduce procedural disputes, ease the burden on judge-rapporteurs, and significantly improve transparency—without undermining legitimate confidentiality interests.
Why This Matters
Openness is key to trust in a new court system. Easier access to UPC case files would support legal certainty, education and informed decision-making for businesses navigating the European patent landscape.
As the UPC continues to evolve, greater transparency—especially for concluded cases—can be one effective way to strengthen confidence in the system.
Want to discuss UPC transparency or access to case files?
If you would like to know more about how UPC case file access works in practice, or how this may affect your business and litigation strategy, please feel free to reach out. Cao Cao and Mattias Forsblom at Groth & Co are happy to share their insights and help you navigate the UPC landscape.
Cao Cao
Partner
European Patent Litigator
European Patent Attorney
