Court of Appeal, April 24, 2026, Order concerning an application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP), UPC_COA_57/2026

The Court confirmed three categories of exceptional circumstances that may justify a stay: (1) irreversibility of enforcement consequences; (2) manifest error in the impugned order; and (3) evident breach of fundamental procedural rights liable to affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Under Art. 74(3) UPCA, an appeal against a procedural order does not prevent continuation of first-instance proceedings, though the Court of First Instance shall not render a final decision before the Court of Appeal has ruled on the appeal. This underscores the need for restraint when granting suspensive effect for such orders.

The defendant argued that disclosure of its core technical know-how would cause irreparable harm rendering the appeal moot. The Court rejected this, holding that a successful appeal would result in the exclusion of the produced documents from the evidentiary record, thereby effectively reversing the order’s legal consequences.

“Legal representatives” refers to qualified attorneys (Art. 48 UPCA, Art. 134 EPC), not the claimant’s executives. They are prohibited from sharing confidential information with the claimant itself. These representatives are bound to use the information exclusively for the litigation. The defendant did not argue that the number of persons in the club was disproportionate.

The defendant argued that ordered disclosure would pre-judge the case and bypass the distinction between the infringement and remedies phases. The Court held that the UPC system requires all facts and evidence to be adduced as early as possible, ideally during the written procedure. This is confirmed by R. 222 RoP, which generally excludes from appeal any evidence not submitted at first instance.