Home » UPC decisions » Luxembourg Court of Appeal » CoA, May 22, 2026, order concerning an application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_61/2026

CoA, May 22, 2026, order concerning an application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_61/2026

2 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The procedural document itself must bear an electronic signature. It is not sufficient to simply “sign submission” in the CMS after the upload of a submission. This is necessary to guarantee the authenticity of a procedural document and to exclude the risk that it is not in fact the work of the person authorized for that purpose.

An extension order can be issued after the time period has expired. Furthermore, the Court may grant a time extension even if the applicant lodged the request for extension after the time period has expired.

Due to the lack of CoA case law on the question of whether the signature in CMS can be considered as a signature under R. 4.1 RoP, the party’s error (i.e., “signing” only in the CMS) is excusable and justifies the requested time extension.

Division

UPC Court of Appeal

UPC number

UPC_CoA_61/2026

Type of proceedings

Application pursuant to R. 262A RoP

Parties

SharkNinja Operating LLC

Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH

Patent(s)

EP 3 689 198

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 262A RoP


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field