STOCKHOLM REGIONAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Peter Kenamets, Fredrik Lüning and Linnéa Hedström, Lind Edlund Kenamets Intellectual Property AB
some instances, the Division has reached out - comes that differ from what one would expect if the matter had been decided by a Swedish court. In others, the outcome has been fully in line with Swedish procedural expectations. Importantly, in those cases where the result was expected based on Swedish national practice, the NBRD’s reasoning still adhered closely to the provisions of the UPC framework. As discussed in 2.4 Time Lines , the NBRD seems to take a somewhat stricter view than Swedish courts regarding stays of infringement proceedings in light of parallel EPO opposition proceedings. In at least one case, the Division declined to stay the proceedings under circum - stances where a stay might have been granted by a Swedish national court. By contrast, the Division’s approach to the hear - ing of expert witnesses appears to be closely aligned with Swedish procedural norms. Its deci - sion to permit a full day of expert testimony prior to the main hearing is entirely consistent with the centrality of orality in Swedish litigation, and may reasonably be viewed as reflecting influ - ence from domestic procedural traditions. 4.6 Court of Appeal Procedural Jurisprudence The NBRD has notably been involved in an issue that has attracted considerable attention within the patent legal community – an issue where the NBRD and another Division of the Court expressed diverging views, and where the Court of Appeal has since issued a decision that resolves the differences. The matter concerns access to documents in UPC proceedings. While all orders and decisions are published to ensure transparency and enable the public to follow the development of case law,
other procedural materials – such as written sub - missions and evidence – are not made public. Access to these requires a written, reasoned request. The Central Division in Munich has taken a restrictive approach to such requests. In a case related to Sanofi v Amgen, the Division held that a request to access case materials for “educa - tional purposes” could not be accommodated. The NBRD, by contrast, has adopted a more open stance. In a case related to Ocado v Auto - store, the Division granted a request for access to the statement of claim after redaction of per - sonal data. Notably, the case had already been settled at the time the request was decided. The Division emphasised that the written procedure shall, in principle, be open to the public, unless confidentiality is exceptionally necessary in the interest of one of the parties, other affected per - sons, or the general interest of justice or public order. However, the Division denied access to documents from other cases pending before other Divisions. The Court of Appeal, notably with the Swedish judge Ingeborg Simonsson acting as judge- rapporteur, established an important precedent by granting access to the statement of claim in Ocado v Autostore. The Court clarified the appli - cable legal standard for document access and drew a distinction between requests concern - ing concluded proceedings and those relating to ongoing proceedings. A request for access to documents in a concluded case should gener - ally be granted. However, access to documents in ongoing proceedings requires a direct legiti - mate interest – for example, that of a competitor or licensee.
132 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook