Order

1. In principle, a patent pool administrator has a legal interest in the outcome of proceedings within the meaning of Rule 313 RoP. 2. Admission of the intervention is not precluded by the fact that it does not prevent an violation of Article 101 TFEU, since the applicant and a party have the possibility to exchange sensitive information under competition law in their written submissions. Allowing an intervention as such does not constitute a violation of Art. 101 TFEU. 3. By admitting the intervention, the applicant becomes a party to the proceedings and is to be treated as a party in accordance with Rule 315 (4) RoP. Since it must accept the proceedings at this stage, it must be allowed access to the file in order to be able to conduct the proceedings properly. 4. If the court has already classified certain information as confidential and granted only limited access to the party on whose side the intervener is joining pursuant to Rule 262a RoP, the intervener cannot be granted unlimited access to this information.

license negotiations, admissibility of the intervention, restricted access to confidential information, antitrust violation, legal interest of a patent pool administrator, intervention