Free-to-use UPC cases portal launches
International membership organisation launches platform enabling access to UPC cases and statistics | Tool aims to provide transparency amidst concerns and latest decision requiring legal representation to request access to court documents | Life sciences cases take up two-thirds of UPC cases.
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) cases are now available on Unified Patents’ new portal, the patent network has confirmed.
Unified Portal expanded its scope, on February 13, 2024, to include cases from the UPC, as the court emerges as an increasingly popular venue for patent disputes—for life sciences companies in particular.
Amid concerns regarding transparency and public access challenges to cases and hearings, users of the portal—which is currently free to use—can now explore real-time case information that is updated daily.
The database allows the user to filter by criteria such as case numbers, patent numbers, actions, respondents, claimants, representatives, judges, and filing dates.
The portal includes all public documents and docket metadata, promoting transparency and accessibility in patent litigation, according to Unified Patents.
The independent international membership organisation has more than 350 members, and frequently supports standard essential patent owners in the face of suits by non-practicing entities.
The organisation offers access to analytics, prior art, invalidity contests, patentability analysis, administrative patent review, amicus briefs, economic surveys, and essentiality studies.
Life sciences cases dominate
Life sciences cases have taken off at the UPC, comprising more than two-thirds of cases, according to a panel at LSPN Europe in November.
Panel moderator Charles Larsen, partner at McDermott, Will & Emery, revealed that life sciences cases made up around 40% of the total cases at the UPC in November, suggesting that this sector was “more aggressive in this court, maybe than we would have thought”.
At the time of writing, Unified Portal features a total of 232 UPC cases. Among these, 97 cases involve counterclaims for revocation, while 79 relate to infringement actions.
Additionally, there are 25 revocations, with the remaining 31 cases involving appeals, provisional measures, or other legal requests.
Each case number within the portal is linked to the UPC and patent numbers connect users to detailed patent information pages within the portal.
Prominent life sciences companies at the court include Dexcom with 24 counts, Agfa with nine counts, and Edwards Lifesciences with eight counts.
The top life sciences claimants are Abbott Diabetes Care and Abbott with six counts, Dexcom with five counts, and Edwards Lifesciences with four counts.
UPC transparency
Technical glitches before the court's launch in June, and conflicting judicial decisions have contributed to uncertainties about how accessible UPC case documents should be.
The rules committee originally aimed to design clear rules stating that written pleadings and evidence would be available to the public unless a party requested confidentiality, and the court approved.
However, a recent decision by the UPC Court of Appeal, means members of the public need legal representation to request access to court documents, deviating from the initial expectations of a straightforward and accessible system.
The UPC Court of Appeal also dismissed attempts by Mathys & Squire and Bristows to intervene in a critical test case relating to the public’s access to court documents, in January 2024.
Last week, the UPC’s Court of Appeal said members of the public who wish to access court documents must appoint a legal representative.
During a discussion on the transparency of the UPC at LSPN Europe in November 2023, Judge Edger Brinkman encouraged stakeholders to lobby for easier access.
He acknowledged that as a new court, the UPC needs time to adjust but suggested that pressure from the public and lawyers could be beneficial.
Laila Beynon, associate director of dispute resolution at Regeneron, also urged legal professionals to lobby for virtual access to hearings for inclusivity and environmental reasons.
She expressed concerns about the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a 'reasonable request' for accessing documents.
Additionally, in September 2023, Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz of the UPC’s Munich division denied access requests for two cases, citing the absence of a "legitimate reason" .
The denial was based on the rules of procedure, which limited third-party access to written pleadings and evidence.
