Key takeaways
Headnotes
The principle of the right to be heard according to Art. 76(2) UPCA obliges the court to take note of and give due consideration to the submissions of the parties to the proceedings. Among other things, this principle requires the court to deal with the essential substance of a party’s submissions and, insofar as they relate to a central issue in the proceedings in question, to address them in its reasoning.
An infringement of this duty must be presumed if the grounds for the court’s decision allow only the conclusion that the court has completely disregarded the party’s submissions, or if the grounds are based on an interpretation that captures, at most, the literal wording but not the meaning of the party’s submissions.
The right to be heard does not require the court to expressly and exhaustively address each and every argument in detail in its decision. At least the parties’ core arguments must be reflected in it.
Suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA is the exception — the applicant must demonstrate that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighs the respondent’s interest.
Recognized grounds for granting suspensive effect include: (1) the impugned decision is manifestly erroneous; (2) the appeal would become devoid of purpose without it; or (3) a fundamental procedural right has been infringed, provided it cannot be ruled out that the court would have reached a different conclusion without that infringement.
Manifest error requires clearly untenable findings — a mere disagreement with the first-instance court’s interpretation of a patent claim feature falls well short of this threshold.
A first-instance court’s adoption of a different interpretation than the one preferred by the appellant does not render the decision manifestly incorrect. The standard requires clearly untenable findings, not merely debatable ones — a difference of interpretive opinion does not suffice.
Functional claim interpretation drawing on the patent description does not constitute a manifest error per se — its correctness is reserved for the full appeal on the merits.
The Court of Appeal found no manifest error where the first-instance court interpreted a claim feature functionally, drawing on the patent description. Whether this interpretation is correct — and whether cited case law on numerical values in patent claims applies — remains open for full review in the main appeal proceedings.
The right to be heard (Art. 76(2) UPCA; Art. 6 ECHR) requires courts to reflect parties’ core arguments — but not to address each and every argument in detail.
A violation of Art. 76(2) UPCA is presumed only where the court completely disregarded a party’s submissions or misrepresented their meaning. Brief, summarized, or paraphrased reproductions of arguments do not constitute a breach, provided core submissions are addressed. The obligation to state reasons under Art. 77(1) UPCA and R. 350.4 RoP is satisfied accordingly.
Injunctive relief may extend to acts of use not previously committed by the infringer, based on the general risk of further infringement established by prior infringing conduct.
Applying the rule from Dyson v. Dreame (UPC-CoA-789/2025), proof of past infringement is sufficient to establish a risk of further infringing acts, including those not yet committed. An injunction covering acts such as making — even where certain defendants had not previously manufactured the product — is therefore not manifestly incorrect.
Substantive claim interpretation issues — including the applicability of specific case law — are reserved for the main appeal and will not be pre-determined in suspensive effect proceedings.
The Court of Appeal expressly reserved judgment on whether specific case law on numerical values in patent claims applied in this case, and if so, whether it would alter the first-instance court’s findings. Such questions of substantive claim interpretation fall outside the scope of summary assessment in suspensive effect proceedings.
Division
Court of Appeal, Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC-CoA-93/2026
Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings
Parties
Appellants (Defendants before the Court of First Instance):
- Siemens Healthineers AG
- Siemens Healthcare GmbH
- Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.
- Siemens Healthcare SAS
vs.
Respondent (Claimant before the Court of First Instance):
Hologic, Inc.
Patent(s)
EP 2 352 431
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 74(1) UPCA
Art. 76(2) UPCA
Art. 77(1) UPCA
Art. 6 ECHR
R. 350.4 RoP
