Unified Patent Court's transparency questioned

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) recently granted Mathys & Squire, a prominent intellectual property law firm, access to evidence in a case between Astellas and Healios. This decision comes as part of Mathys & Squire's ongoing efforts to enhance transparency within the newly established court system. However, despite this success, significant concerns remain about the UPC's commitment to openness and how it processes requests for access to court documents.

The UPC, which has been operational for just over a year, is designed to enforce patents across much of the European Union, offering a streamlined legal process for patent disputes. However, the court's approach to transparency has come under scrutiny, particularly concerning the accessibility of pleadings and evidence to third parties. These concerns have been highlighted by the recent case involving Mathys & Squire, who sought to challenge the UPC's restrictions on third-party access to public documents in court proceedings.

Historically, the principles of openness and transparency in judicial processes are well-established in both international and European law. These principles ensure that court proceedings are accessible to the public and that third parties can obtain relevant documents upon request. However, the UPC's recent practices have raised alarms, with the court often restricting access to such documents, even in cases where transparency should be the norm.

Nicholas Fox, a partner at Mathys & Squire, expressed mixed feelings about the UPC's decision to grant their access request. "We are delighted that the Unified Patent Court has finally granted our request to access the pleadings in this case," Nicholas Fox stated. However, he also voiced serious concerns about the manner in which the request was handled. "The way in which our request has been processed still raises significant concerns about the UPC's commitment to transparency and open justice."

One of the key issues Nicholas Fox highlighted was the considerable delay in processing the access request. "It has taken more than 8 months for the court to process our request," Fox noted, emphasising that this delay meant that the evidence was only made available after the underlying case had already been settled. This timing effectively undermined the value of the access granted, as it prevented third parties from observing the case as it unfolded.

Moreover, Nicholas Fox pointed out that the Judge-Rapporteur had previously indicated that the request would be processed "expeditiously" once an appeal related to another document access request had concluded. Although those appeal proceedings ended on April 10, the UPC took over four months to process Mathys & Squire's application and issue a decision. This prolonged delay has further fueled concerns about the court's transparency.

To date, the UPC has yet to grant access to written pleadings and evidence in a case before the underlying matter has been concluded. This practice has drawn criticism from those who argue that transparency in court proceedings is essential for maintaining public trust in the judicial system. The delays experienced by Mathys & Squire suggest that the UPC may struggle to fulfill its obligations to openness, raising questions about how transparent the new European Court system will be in the future.

As the UPC continues to develop its procedures and establish its role within the European Union's legal landscape, the need for greater transparency and efficiency in handling access requests will be crucial. Stakeholders like Mathys & Squire remain vigilant, pushing for improvements that will ensure the court operates in a manner consistent with the principles of open justice and public accountability.