Key takeaways
Admissibility of appeals requires that the appellant is adversely affected by the first-instance decision under Art. 73(2) UPCA and R. 220.1 and 220.2 RoP.
An appeal by the claimant is inadmissible if the first-instance order did not rule on the admissibility of the counterclaim against the claimant, but only against the intervener. The claimant is not adversely affected by such an order, and procedural economy cannot override this statutory requirement.
First-instance proceedings are generally not stayed pending appeal on an order rejecting a Preliminary objection under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 21.2 and 19.6 RoP, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
A stay requires exceptional circumstances, balancing the parties’ interests and the stage of proceedings. In this case, no stay was warranted because the first-instance court must inevitably evaluate the defendant’s FRAND defense and negotiation history regardless of the result of the appeal regarding the intervener’s party status in the counterclaim.
A stay or suspensive effect under R 21.2, R. 295(m) and R. 223 RoP may be appropriate if the impugned first-instance order were manifestly erroneous.
To establish a manifest error, the appellant must show that the first-instance court’s factual or legal considerations prove untenable already based on a summary assessment.
Objections to international jurisdiction must be raised via a Preliminary objection within the one-month time limit under R. 19.1 and 20 RoP.
If the claimant and intervener fail to file a Preliminary Objection within one month of gaining access to the counterclaim, they waive their right to a preliminary decision. The jurisdictional objection must then be deferred to the final decision on the merits.
A first-instance order does not contradict itself or provide unclear information when conditionally adding an intervener as a party under R. 305 and R. 315.4 RoP to ensure counterclaim admissibility.
A conditional order adding the intervener as a party on the claimant’s side—to be triggered if the status as an intervener is deemed insufficient for counterclaim admissibility—is clear and not manifestly erroneous. However, if such a condition is admissible, it is to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal, if necessary.
Division
Court of Appeal, Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC-CoA-118/2026, UPC-CoA-119/2026, UPC-CoA-120/2026
Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect / stay of first-instance proceedings
Parties
Dolby International AB (Claimant, Appellant 1), Vectis IP Ltd. (Intervener / Appellant 2) v. CPYou B.V., Acer Italy SRL, Acer Computer GmbH, Acer Computer B.V Benelux, Acer Denmark A S, Acer Finland Oy, Acer Computer France, Acer Sweden AB (Defendants / Respondents)
Patent(s)
EP 3 079 153
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19.1 RoP, Rule 19.6 RoP, Rule 20 RoP, Rule 21.2 RoP, Rule 220.1 RoP, Rule 220.2 RoP, Rule 223 RoP, Rule 295(m) RoP, Rule 305 RoP, Rule 315.4 RoP, Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 47 UPCA, Art. 73(2) UPCA, Art. 74(1) UPCA
