Key takeaways
Suspensive effect is the exception, not the rule for applications for rehearing (Art. 81(2) UPCA, R. 252 RoP).
The filing of an application for rehearing against a final decision of the Court of Appeal does not automatically suspend its enforceability. Suspensive effect requires a positive, separate decision of the Court and constitutes a departure from the default rule of continued enforceability.
The extraordinary character of the rehearing remedy under Art. 81 UPCA requires that any request for suspensive effect be specifically and independently substantiated.
Because reopening of final decisions is confined to the narrow grounds set out in Art. 81 UPCA, a request for suspension cannot rely on the same grounds invoked for the rehearing itself. It must be separately justified, weighing the parties’ competing interests.
Merely reasserting the alleged fundamental procedural defects underlying the rehearing request does not justify suspending the decision under review.
An applicant seeking suspensive effect must identify concrete, irreparable prejudice and demonstrate that the interests of justice require immediate suspension.
The applicant must show specific prejudice resulting from maintaining the decision’s effects, and explain why such prejudice could not be adequately remedied if the rehearing later succeeds. Absent such reasoning, the general rule of enforceability under Art. 81(2) UPCA prevails.
Divison
Court of Appeal (Luxembourg)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_312/2025
Type of proceedings
Application for rehearing, here: request for suspensive effect
Parties
Applicant: Fujifilm Corporation
Defendants: Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 3 511 174
Jurisdiction
Japan, Germany
Body of legislation
Art. 81(2) UPCA
R. 245 et seq. RoP, R. 252 RoP
