Home » UPC decisions » Luxembourg Court of Appeal » Court of Appeal, April 14, 2026, Order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_48/2026

Court of Appeal, April 14, 2026, Order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_48/2026

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The Court confirmed its established case law that in case of a conflict between the UPCA and Rules of Procedure , the UPCA prevails (R. 1.1 RoP), allowing it to grant suspensive effect to an order pursuant to R. 220.2 RoP despite R. 223.5 RoP stating otherwise.

Irreversible consequences constitute exceptional circumstances. However, a security deposit is generally considered reversible as it can be reimbursed if the appellant is successful, meaning this condition is often not met.
A manifestly wrong order is one based on clearly untenable factual or legal grounds. A violation of the right to be heard is an example of a fundamental rights infringement.

The appellant failed to provide specific evidence that it could not comply with the security order or would suffer extreme detriment. The Court noted the consequences were reversible as a deposit can be reimbursed.

The order concerning an application for suspensive effect is not a final decision or a decision concluding an action, and therefore does not contain a decision on costs.

Division

Court of Appeal, Luxembourg

UPC number

UPC_CoA_48/2026

Type of proceedings

Application RoP 223

Parties

Applicant/Appellant (Claimant): La Siddhi Consultancy Limited

Respondents (Defendants): Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS and Substipharm

Patent(s)

EP 3 592 333

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 69(4) UPCA

Art. 74 UPCA

R. 1.1 RoP

R. 158 RoP

R. 223.5 RoP

Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union


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