1. Key takeaways
Independence of a counsellor is measured with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party
The fact that the representative of a party is also the inventor of the patent-in-suit, the original applicant of the application underlying the patent-in-suit and the managing director of the first assignee of the patent does not automatically contradict the independence of the counsellor as required in R. 290 (2) RoP in conjunction with Art. 2.4.1. of the Code of Conduct for Representatives, according to which 'A representative shall act towards the Court as an independent counsellor by serving the interests of his/her Clients in an unbiased manner without regard to his/her personal feelings or interests'.
The obligation to act as an independent counsellor is imposed by the aforementioned provision of the Code of Conduct to protect the effectiveness of the party's right to defence in court, even in relation to the possibility of situations that may give rise to conflicts of interest or, in any event, to disloyal representation.
The lack of independence must therefore be assessed not in an absolute sense, but with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party on whose behalf the professional acts.
When objecting a request for protection of confidential information, respondent has to demonstrate specific interest in accessing the documents
When addressing a request for protection of confidential information the Court must balance the opposing interests. Confidentiality of information is important for businesses, while open access is crucial for presenting a proper defence. The Court may grant the request if the reasons provided by the Applicant significantly outweigh the opposing party's interest in having full access to the information.
The Respondent has not demonstrated any specific interest in accessing these documents or the information they contain.
2. Division
CD Paris
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_164/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings
5. Parties
Applicant: Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Respondent: Microsoft Corporation
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 671 173
7. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 290 RoP, R. 262A RoP
To view the full article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.