27 January 2025
Local Division Munich, Avago v Tesla (re Fuchs)UPC_CFI_52/2023
File access request
Facts
Patentanwalt Läufer requests access to pleadings and evidence, particularly in the revocation case of Avago v Tesla.
Läufer cites training purposes, among other reasons, for the request.
Neither Avago nor Tesla object to the request.
Decision
The request is granted.
Comment
- No surprise, as this aligns fully with the case law of the Court of Appeal (Ocado v Autostore, CoA 404/2023)
- As mentioned, it seems more efficient for the Rules of Procedure (RoP) to be revised, making this a task for the Registry at first instance.
- In my opinion pleadings etc. are protected by copyright. So certainly if you organize trainings for patent attorneys and hand out copies of the pleadings as material for the students that may be a copyright infringement. I do not think the “no objection” of the parties can be seen as a consent to use the material for such purposes (see Article 10(2) of the Berne Convention (!)).
27 January 2025
Local Division Munich, Lenovo v Asus
Setting dates
The judge-rapporteur (JR) sets the dates for the interim conference (25 September 2025) and the oral argument (19 November). Parties may inform the Court until 18 September regarding topics they wish to discuss at the interim conference and submit a provisional cost estimate.
Comment
- Is it really necessary to publish these types of “house keeping orders”?
- Far more serious is that (interesting) decisions which are not published on the day of the decision may be overlooked by the interested reader because they are only published some time after the date of the decision. To give an example: if a decision rendered on 23 December was not published on that date but only on 15 January, the reader who reads all decisions published that day or that week, will never see the 23 December decision because that decision of 15 January is placed in the list of decisions published on 23 December. A preferred and much better way would be to publish the decision on the website on 15 January indicating that the date of the decision is 23 December. Alternatively, if it really is necessary to preserve the present system, the decision could be listed both under 23 December and (temporarily) under 15 January, and then 2 weeks or so later be deleted again from the list of 15 January.