Court of Appeal, October 16, 2026, Application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-97/2026

Written pleadings and other documents must be signed and lodged with the Registry or the relevant sub-registry in electronic form (R. 4.1 RoP). The written pleadings themselves must bear the signature of the party.

• It is not sufficient for a party’s representative to log into the Case Management System (CMS) through a secure authentication process and thereby confirm his or her identity (CoA, May 22, 2026, UPC-CoA-61/2026, SharkNinja v. SEB, paras. 11–12; Windhager v. bellissa, para. 22).
• The wording of R. 4.1 RoP does not require that such signature take the form of a qualified or advanced electronic signature (CoA, October 8, 2026, UPC-CoA-73/2026, ESKO-SOFTWARE, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v. IN(K)CONTROL BV, para. 26).

The Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings (CoA, May 28, 2024, UPC_CoA_22/2024, Carrier v BITZER, para. 23). An exception applies when a “rapid” decision “may” be expected from the EPO (Art. 33(10) UPCA, R. 295(a) RoP).

– The term “rapid” must be interpreted in the light of the relevant circumstances of the case, such as the stage of the opposition proceedings and the stage of the revocation proceedings (CoA, April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_5/2025, Juul v NJOY, para. 5).

– The term “may” gives the court discretion to stay even when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. Whether or not a stay is granted depends on the balance of interests of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case. Here, the stay request was dismissed, since the court saw no decisive procedural advantage in a stay: The BoA of the EPO had stated that the patent is valid in the amended form (aux request 2) in the preliminary opinion and orally after the oral hearing; only the written decision was outstanding. Aux request 2 was already subject before the Court of First Instance. Respondent still had 40 days to comment on the present UPC proceedings and the EPO proceedings.