-
Court of Appeal, 14 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-76/2026
Suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP may be partially granted on a prima facie basis where thrid-country export controls impede immediate compliance: The Court of Appeal accepted, on a prima facie basis, that: (i) Chinese export-control law applied to the materials; (ii) required administrative procedures were incompatible with the fixed deadline; and (iii) non-compliance could…
-
Court of Appeal, 15 July 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_68/2026 – UPC_CoA_72/2026
Court Fees of an Appeal shall be paid in accordance with CFI’s Value of the Action : As a general principle, fees shall be paid in accordance with the value of the action as determined by the Court of First Instance. The parties are not entitled to unilaterally determine or amend the value of the…
-
Court of Appeal – Clarification on a conditional counterclaim for revocation – UPC-CoA-40/2026, 16 July 2026, Emboline, Inc. v. AorticLab, srl
Headnotes: Limiting a counterclaim for revocation by making it conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible. There is a need for clarification on such a conditional counterclaim if and when the infringement claimant appeals from a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance. In the event of an appeal by the infringement…
-
Court of Appeal – Right to Be Heard, Manifest Error, and Suspensive Effect in UPC Patent Appeal Proceedings – UPC-CoA-93/2026, 15 July 2026, Siemens Healthineers AG v. Hologic, Inc.
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…
