STOCKHOLM REGIONAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Peter Kenamets, Fredrik Lüning and Linnéa Hedström, Lind Edlund Kenamets Intellectual Property AB
Sioen argued that the NBRD lacked jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, referring to Articles 29 and 31 (litis pendens), or alterna - tively, that proceedings should be dismissed or at least stayed under Article 30. The NBRD disagreed. It firstly held that Article 83 (1) UPCA, concerning transitional jurisdiction of national courts, also applies to actions for decla - rations of non-infringement, even if such actions are not explicitly listed in the provision. The Division further concluded that Articles 29 and 31 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation did not apply, as the NBRD and Belgian actions were not between the same parties. In Belgium, the action involved the patent holder, whereas the NBRD action involved the licensee – mean - ing there was no identity of parties. The NBRD thus retained jurisdiction. Finally, the Division declined to stay the pro - ceedings under Article 30. It noted that the Bel - gian court had only claimed jurisdiction over the Belgian part of the patent, and no information had been provided regarding the substance of the invalidity claim. Moreover, the main hearing in Belgium was scheduled to take place after the NBRD hearing. For these reasons, the Division found no sufficient grounds to stay the proceed - ings. 4.3 Third-Party Access to Documents Access to Written Pleadings by Third Parties The NBRD has already dealt with several instances where third parties – typically with only a general or commercial interest in the outcome – have requested access to written pleadings and evidence in UPC proceedings. In Ocado v Autostore (UPC_CFI_11/2023, 17 October 2023), the proceedings had been closed
following a settlement between the parties. A third party, acting as a member of the public, requested access to the statement of claim. The NBRD granted the request and ordered disclo - sure of the document. Ocado appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance decision (see Ocado v Autostore, UPC CoA 404/2024, 10 April 2024). In a subsequent matter in June 2024, a member of the public requested access to written plead - ings and evidence in a number of ongoing cases between Edwards and Meril. In a later filing, the applicant clarified that he was a board member and investor in a medical device company and therefore had a commercial interest in the case. Nevertheless, the NBRD rejected the request. The Division held that, as the proceedings were ongoing, the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process outweighed the public interest in disclosure. This outcome is consistent with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore, and notably, the NBRD left open the possibility that access could be granted after the proceedings had concluded. The decision expressly stated that the request was denied “at this point in time”. 4.4 Pending Procedural Issues This is covered in 3.1 Topics Covered . 4.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Procedural Issues Influence of National Procedural Practice on the NBRD’s Decision-Making The extent to which the NBRD has been influ - enced by national procedural practice – particu - larly Swedish practice – is somewhat mixed. In
131 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook