Docket Navigator v Syngenta (UPC_CoA_523/2024)
Decision date:
19 December 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision of the Court of Appeal concerned access to written pleadings and evidence lodged at the UPC.
- Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded appeal proceedings in Sumi Agro v Syngenta. It had described its request as a test case to evaluate the UPC's willingness to allow access to documents for concluded cases, which Docket Navigator intended to make publicly available to its more than 15,000 subscribers, including judges, lawyers and legal professionals.
- The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that the objectives of balancing interests pursuant to Article 45 UPCA and the requirement of representation would be compromised if access was granted to a company intending to make documents publicly available on its patent litigation intelligence platform.
- The requested documents comprised the statement of appeal, response to statement of appeal, and various exhibits filed by both parties. Docket Navigator argued that since proceedings had concluded by final decision of the Court of Appeal, protecting the integrity of proceedings no longer played a role in the balancing of interests, and that it and its subscribers had a legitimate interest in the documents to better understand the court's decision. Docket Navigator offered to include disclaimers on its database limiting use of the documents to purposes consistent with open justice principles and confirmed it would not use them to train artificial intelligence systems.
- Sumi Agro objected on the ground that the appeal proceedings were not yet concluded. It pointed to a pending application for rehearing under Rule 245 RoP as creating a need to protect the integrity of proceedings. Syngenta similarly requested dismissal, submitting that Docket Navigator's intention to build a database containing all filed materials and make them available to subscribers for a fee corresponded only to a financial interest, and that the court's control of the documents would be circumvented if files were available in Docket Navigator's database to anyone. Furthermore, both parties raised copyright concerns, arguing that written submissions and certain evidence are generally protected by copyright and that any copying or publication would constitute infringement not covered by fair use exemptions under European copyright law.
- The Court of Appeal referred to the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in relation to access to documents in Ocado v Autostore.
- The court held that copyright is not a general interest that must be observed pursuant to Article 45 UPCA when a member of the public requests access to the register pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The court noted that the Infosoc Directive is explicitly without prejudice to provisions concerning access to public documents and concluded that the interests of copyright holders are duly protected by the procedures available in national courts for copyright infringement.
- The court reiterated that when access is requested, the public interest must be balanced against general interests in Article 45 UPCA, including protection of confidential information, personal data, justice and the integrity of proceedings, and that these interests are usually properly balanced if access is given after proceedings have concluded, though members of the public with direct legitimate interests in the subject-matter may obtain access earlier.
- The court clarified that "reasoned request" in Rule 262.1(b) RoP means a request that not only states which documents are sought, but also specifies the purpose and explains why access is necessary for that purpose, providing all information necessary for the judge-rapporteur to balance all the interests under Article 45 UPCA. The procedure under Rule 262.1(b) RoP is based on individual assessments of each request, where the nature of the member of the public and the purpose of the request can play a part.
- The court stated that the application of Rule 262.1(b) RoP is furthermore safeguarded by the requirement of representation when requesting access to the register. The rationale is to protect parties when it comes to the legal consequences of procedural measures. Furthermore, it ensures the proper conduct of proceedings.
- The court held that these controls would be circumvented if the court provided access to a company intending to make documents publicly available to subscribers on its patent litigation intelligence platform. Any subscriber could access the documents. This is not an interest that is protected under Article 45 UPCA.
- The court concluded that Docket Navigator's request could not be considered to be made based on an interest protected under Article 45 UPCA. No conditions imposed on it on granting access could remedy this deficiency.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.