MUNICH CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker
adjudicate thereon in accordance with Rule 360 RoP. On a related topic, the CD Munich ruled that Rule 370.9 RoP (reimbursement of 20% of the court fees) is not limited to concluding an action by way of settlement within the meaning of Rule 365 RoP, in particular since the parties shall be encouraged to settle an action in an early stage of the proceedings. 4.3 Third-Party Access to Documents Following the Court of Appeal’s landmark deci - sion in Ocado/Autostore (UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023, order of 10 April 2024) regarding the appropriate standard to be applied when considering requests by third parties for access to written pleadings and evidence, the CD Munich applied a generally permissive regime for access to pleading and evidence. The most recent orders are summarised in the following. Requests Made Under Rule 262.1 (b) RoP The CD Munich dealt with several requests made under Rule 262.1 (b) RoP, which allows public access to court documents upon a reasoned request. For example, in the most recent case of 3 January 2025, Berggren Oy, the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) granted a request to access the written pleadings and evidence from the then-concluded revocation action in NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard College. The CD Munich noted the case was concluded and highlighted the public’s interest in transparency, in part to increase trust in the court. With no objections or confidentiality concerns, it granted access to the documents, subject to redaction of personal data under EU data protection rules.
Similar orders were rendered on 22 October 2024 in three Dehns cases requesting access to the written pleadings and evidence of the Sanofi/ Regeneron v Amgen case. In these orders, the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) addi - tionally held that Rule 262.1 (b) RoP does not permit access to documents that are not written pleadings or evidence. The CD Munich based its interpretation on the rule’s wording and its pur - pose – to ensure transparency only regarding the substantive elements of a case. Since the claim - ant failed to show a legitimate interest in other documents, despite being invited to do so, the court deemed part of the request inadmissible and unfounded. Request Made Under Rule 262.3 RoP In its order of 4 November 2024 in Mathys & Squire, the CD Munich granted access to previ - ously redacted pleadings in Astellas v Healios. Astellas had claimed confidentiality under Rule 262.2 RoP, but failed to substantiate its posi - tion when challenged under Rule 262.3 RoP. The court, referring to the Court of Appeal’s landmark decision Ocado/Autostore, found that Mathys & Squire’s interest in access outweighed any At present, the authors are not aware of any spe - cific procedural issues currently pending before the Central Division in Munich. 4.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Procedural Issues remaining confidentiality concerns. 4.4 Pending Procedural Issues As already outlined with regard to substantive legal decisions, there is no discernible tendency for procedural decisions to be shaped by Ger - man or other national court practices. Rather, the CD Munich is deliberately forging its own legal standards, with the clear objective of establish -
23
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook