Court of Appeal, standing judge, April 28, 2026, order on request for discretionary review, UPC_CoA_56/2026

In the case at issue, the Respondent filed its implicit request for retroactive term extension as an alternative request to the request for the re-establishment of rights within the time period for the latter. The Court of Appeal held that it was not unreasonable for the LD to consider it excusable that in this case, wherein the order of the Court of Appeal in Angelalign v. Angel Technology (UPC_CoA_37/2026) was not yet issued, the request was made in the application and within the time period set out for a request for the re-establishment of rights. However, the Court of Appeal expressly agreed that a request persuant to R. 9.3 RoP for retroactive term extension, should generally be made as soon as possible.

Based on the reasoning and on the evidence submitted to the LD, the LD concluded that a system of checks had been put into place within the representatives’ law firm and that despite this system, the deadline at issue was missed by a human error, in particular by the assistant of Respondent’s representatives incorrectly noting the prescribed time period in the system on which the Respondent’s representatives relied. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the LD’s determination that this was an excusable human error is understandable and reasonable in view of the facts and evidence of the case.