Key takeaways
An appeal against a revocation decision always has an automatic suspensive effect according to Art. 74(2) UPCA that applies to the entire decision, including the award of costs
The Court rejected the Applicants’ argument for a narrow interpretation, finding it an “arbitrary limitation”. It held the suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety, rendering the basis for the cost claim temporarily ineffective.
An application for a cost decision is not untimely just because an appeal is later filed, as the time limits for each are different
The Court noted the one-month time limit for a cost application (R.150 RoP) versus the two-month time limit for an appeal makes the “simultaneous pendency of the two proceedings is normal”, even when the appeal has automatic suspensive effect.
The Court may stay cost proceedings in accordance with the general principles of flexibility, fairness, proportionality, and equity and in application of R.295(c) nd (m) RoP
The Court stayed the cost proceedings to reasonably and efficiently coordinate the two proceedings.
Division
LD Milan
UPC number
UPC_CFI_1738/2025
Type of proceedings
infringement action
Parties
Applicants: AWM s.r.l., Italy; Schnell s.p.a., Italy
Respondent: Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, Italy
Patent
EP 2 726 230
Jurisdictions
Place jurisdictions
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 150 RoP
