Paris Local Division

UPC_CFI_583/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, delivered on 19/02/2025

APPLICANT

POSCO (Goedong-dong) 6261, Donghaean-ro, Nam-gu Pohang-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do - 37859 - Seoul - KR

Represented by Jasper Werhahn

PARTIES IN PROCEEDINGS

CLAIMANT ArcelorMittal 24-26 Boulevard d'Avranches 1160 Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Represented by Camille Pecnard, Cabinet Lavoix

DEFENDANTS

XPENG INC

No. 8 Songgang Road, Changxing Street, Cencun, Tianhe District

510640 - Guangzhou, Guangdong - Chine

XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV Hoogoorddreef 11 1101BA - Amsterdam - Pays-Bas

XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL 92 route de la reine 92100 - Boulogne-Billancourt - France

JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS

ZI des Landiers Ouest, 158 rue des épinettes 73290 - La Motte-Servolex - France

E-LAIN SAS

ZI des Landiers Ouest, 158 rue des épinettes 73290 - La Motte-Servolex - France

XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV

Hoogoorddreef 11

1101BA - Amsterdam - Pays-Bas

ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV

Plesmanstraat 36

3905KZ - Veenendaal - Pays-Bas

XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH

Frankfurter Ring 81

80807 - München - Allemagne

MOLL GmbH & Co.KG

Am Seestern 3a

40547 - Düsseldorf - Allemagne

Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG

Rather Straße 78-80

40476 - Düsseldorf - Allemagne

XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB

Pyramidvägen 7

169 56 Solna - Stockholm - Suède

BILIA AB

Box 9003

40091 - Göteborg - Suède

XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS

Lodbrogsvej 4A

3400 - Hillerød - Danemark

EJNER HESSEL A/S

Jyllandsvej 4

7330 - Brande - Danemark

HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE LUXEMBOURG S.A.

12, rue Guillaume Schneider 2522 - Luxembourg - Luxembourg

Represented by David Mulder, Taylor Wessing N.V.

Represented by Christian Dekoninck, Taylor Wessing N.V.

PATENT AT ISSUE:

DECIDING JUDGE

Presiding judge and Judge rapporteur -Camille Lignieres

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English

ORDER

An infringement acƟon based on the patent EP 3 290 200 ('EP'200') was iniƟated by ArcelorMiƩal ('the Claimant') against several companies that are part of the XPENG group ("the Defendants").

On 23 January 2025, POSCO ('the Applicant'), a member of the public, filed an applicaƟon via CMS pursuant to Rule2621 b) RoP for inspecƟon of the wriƩen pleadings and evidence lodged at the Court in the main proceedings ('the ApplicaƟon').

Following a Preliminary Order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur on 28 January 2025 the parƟes provided their comments to the Court on 4 February 2025.

In support of its request, the Applicant states that:

XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl De Kleetlaan 4 1831 - Machelen (Brab.) - Belgique

HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA Industriepark Noord 2 9100 - Sint-Niklaas - Belgique

• -the Claimant and the Applicant are both acƟve in the field of steel manufacturing, with a parƟcular focus on steel manufacturing for the automoƟve industry and both parƟes are currently engaged in several opposiƟon proceedings before the European Pa tent O ffi ce (EPO).
• -the Applicant has filed an opposiƟon against the claimant's European Patent EP 3 290 200, which is the patent at issue in the infringement proceedings ACT_54607/2024.
• -the opposiƟon proceedings regarding EP 3 290 200 are now accelerated ex officio at the appeal stage because of the parallel infringement proceedings before the UPC and that the validity discussion of the patent at issue in the pending opposiƟon appeal proceedings before the EPO is dependent on the interpretaƟon of mulƟple claim features.

The Applicant requires access to wriƩen pleadings and evidence of the infringement case to analyse the Claimant's claim interpretaƟon in the pending infringement proceedings before the UPC, which is mandatory pursuant to Rule 13.1n RoP, and which is immediately relevant for the validity discussion in the parallel opposiƟon appeal case before the EP'200.

In their comments in reply to the present ApplicaƟon, the Defendants (XPENG's companies) leave the decision on whether to allow or not POSCO's access request for the Court's discreƟon.

ARCELORMITTAL requests that POSCO's applicaƟon to access the register be refused. The Claimant contests the ApplicaƟon for the following reasons:

• 1. a lack of direct interest in the subject maƩer of the proceedings, arguing that:
• -the main acƟon at the UPC level is an infringement acƟon,
• • for now, there is no discussion on the validity of EP'200,
• -contrary to POSCO's allegaƟons, there is thus no discussion about the interpretaƟon of the features of EP'200,

-the wriƩen pleadings and the evidence solely relate to a product considered by ARCELORMITTAL as infringing EP'200, not to the validity of the patent.

• 2. a lack of a 'reasoned request', arguing that, in the case at hand, the procedure has not ended, and that POSCO has no direct interest in the subject maƩer of the proceedings.

In the Claimant's view, the Court should weigh in favour of refusing access to the register, taking into account the following:

• -The interest of the parƟes, i.e. the protecƟon of the confidenƟality of the statement of claims and the documents cited in support that contain laboratory analysis, technical documents, baili ff reports etc.; all related to the demonstraƟon of the inf ringement).
• -The interest of JusƟce, i.e. the efficiency of the proceedings that will be slowed down if the request is granted, and terminaƟng the proceedings will take more Ɵme.
• -The interest of the public, i.e. access to documents in an infringement acƟon is not in the public's interest.
• -The interest of public order, i.e. the integrity of the proceedings and dispuƟng abusive claims that serve no legiƟmate purpose but only delay proceedings.

Legal Framework

ArƟcle 45 UPCA - Public proceedings:

The proceedings shall be open to the public unless the Court decides to make them confidenƟal, to the extent necessary, in the interest of one of the parƟes or other a ff ected persons, or in the general interest of jusƟce or public order.

Rule 262 - Public access to the register:

• 1. Without prejudice to ArƟcles 58 and 60(1) of the Agreement and subject to Rules 190.1, 194.5, 196.1, 197.4, 199.1, 207.7, 209.4, 315.2 and 365.2, and following, where applicable, redacƟon of personal data within the meaning of RegulaƟon (EU) 2016/679 and confidenƟal informaƟon according to paragraph 2
• (b) wriƩen pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court and recorded by the Registry shall be available to the public upon reasoned request to the Registry; the decision is taken by the judge-rapporteur aŌer consulƟng the parƟes .

Grounds

A reasoned request is a concrete, verifiable and legiƟmate reason. The UPC Munich Central Division has rightly stated: 'To ensure the proper balance of interests, the applicant of a R.262.1(b) request must set out the reasons why he has an interest to access. It follows that 'reasoned request' means a request that not only specify the scope but also the purpose and why the info rmaƟon requested is necessary to that aim'. (UPC_CFI_1/2023 - 20/09/23 - CD Munich - Sano fi v Amgen)

In assessing the applicaƟon based on R 262 -1 RoP, the Judge-Rapporteur must balance the applicant's interest as explained in its applicaƟon against the principle of the integrity of the infringement proceedings brought by the Claimant against its compeƟtor XPENG involving commercial and technical informaƟon that may fall within the scope of trade secrets.

In the present applicaƟon, POSCO's request is clearly explained; it is made to pursue a procedural strategy in the context of the EPO's parallel proceedings, which deal solely with the validity of the patent as granted, which is the same as that on which the infringement acƟon before this Division is based.

The Applicant referred to an order of the UPC Paris Central Division, which had been seized by an acƟon for revocaƟon, according to which the existence of opposiƟon proceedings before the EPO, in which the applicant was involved, made access to the docu ments legiƟmate. (CD Paris, ACT_n°571808/2023-UPC number: UPC_CFI_316/2023)

ARCELORMITTAL has correctly noted in its wriƩen comments that the current acƟon is not a revocaƟon acƟon but rather an infringement acƟon that is sƟll in its early stages. Only the Statement of Claim (SoC) has been fi led, while the Statement of Defen ce (SoD), along with a potenƟal counterclaim for revocaƟon, has yet to be submiƩed. Therefore, there is currently no challenge to the validity of the patent, and no discussions on this maƩer have occurred between the parƟes. At this stage, no documents have been exchanged that would reveal the content of any debate regarding the validity of the patent-such as a counterclaim and the response to it, possibly including a request for amendments to the patent.

However, the Applicant expresses interest in the explanaƟons provided by the Claimant in its Statement of Claim regarding the interpretaƟon of the claims that underpin the infringement acƟon.

The Court notes that the interpretaƟon of claims proposed by a party in an infringement acƟon should be consistent with the interpretaƟon used in a revocaƟon acƟon. This principle was highlighted by the UPC Court of Appeal when establishing the standa rd for patent interpretaƟon (UPC_CoA_335/2023 and UPC_CoA_1/2024). The UPC Court of Appeal stated: ' In applying these principles, the goal is to ensure adequate protecƟon for the patent holder while providing sufficient legal certainty for third parƟes. These principles for interpreƟng a patent claim are applicable to both the assessment of infringement and the validity of a European patent .'

Consequently, the Applicant demonstrates a legiƟmate interest in having access to the statement of claim and the related exhibits, provided that these exhibits are not covered by a confidenƟality order, such as Exhibit 8, which is the subject of a con fi d enƟality order dated 18/02/2025 (Order nº ORD_8266/2025 in AcƟon Nº: ACT_54607/2024) and which, in any event, has no bearing on the scope of protecƟon defined by the applicant for infringement based on its patent EP'200.

The other wriƩen pleadings, which relate to procedural maƩers (alignment of service dates and change of languages), do not concern the claim construcƟon of the patent in suit.

Considering these elements, the Judge-rapporteur orders that:

• -POSCO is granted access to the following wriƩen pleadings and evidence submiƩed by the Claimant as currently contained in the CMS in acƟon UPC_ CFI_583/2024:
• -the statement of claim submiƩed by ARCELORMITTAL,
• -and the exhibits supporƟng the statement of claim, except for Exhibit 8, which is enƟrely protected by a confidenƟality order (Order nº ORD_8266/2025 in AcƟon Nº: ACT_54607/2024)
• • This order may be reviewed according to R. 333 RoP .

Issued in Paris, on 19 February 2025.

• C. Lignieres, judge-rapporteur.

ORDER DETAILS

Order nº ORD_8329/2025 in Action Nº: ACT_54607/2024 UPC nº : UPC_CFI_583/2024 Action Type: Infringement Action Related proceeding n°: 3790/2025 Application Type: APPLICATION_ROP262_1_b