Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_85/2026

The appellate regime of an order depends on its substantive nature, not on whether it appears alongside other orders in a final decision. A value-in-dispute determination could have been taken separately under R. 104(j) and R. 105.5 RoP or by the panel under R. 331.2, R. 333.5, or R. 336 RoP. Its inclusion in a final decision does not make it a “final decision” under R. 220.1(a) RoP.

If the Court of First Instance fails to decide on a timely request for leave to appeal within the 15-day period of R. 220.3 RoP, this inaction is effectively treated as a refusal. The applicant may then file a request for discretionary review within 15 days from the end of that first 15-day period.

R. 22.1 RoP concerns value-based court fees for infringement actions. For counterclaims for revocation, only a fixed fee is payable under R. 26 in conjunction with R. 370.4 RoP. The value in dispute nonetheless remains relevant for counterclaims for revocation to determine the ceiling for recoverable costs under Art. 69(1) UPCA and the Administrative Committee’s Guidelines.

Section 2.b)(2)(ii) of the Guidelines provides that the value of a revocation counterclaim “may be” assumed as equal to the infringement action “plus up to 50%,” but only “in the absence of relevant information.” The defendant’s argument that the erga omnes effect of revocation mandated a higher value was rejected, as the Court of First Instance had exercised its discretion with reference to case-specific circumstances.