Key takeaways
Logging into the CMS via secure two-factor authentication is insufficient to make effective submissions: under Rule 4.1 RoP all pleadings must be signed with a certified electronic signature.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that secure authentication to log into the CMS only verifies the user’s identity for system access. It does not replace the mandatory requirement (see Rule 4.1 RoP) for the appellant’s representative to sign the pleading itself to ensure authenticity (see already CoA, decision of May 22, 2026, SharkNinja v. SEB, CoA_61/2026).
An unsigned statement of appeal cannot be admitted as a validly filed appeal under Rule 224 RoP.
The appellant’s representative only submitted an unsigned statement of appeal within the preclusive two-month deadline under Rule 224.1(a) RoP [1.1] and Article 73(1) UPCA, which led the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible. The defect of the unsigned statement of appeal could not be healed by filing a signed statement of appeal after the two-months deadline.
Subsequent procedural steps or orders by the Court of Appeal (such as: conclusion of formal checks and scheduling the oral hearing) do not create legitimate expectations or cure the defect if the preclusive appeal period has already elapsed.
Alleged technical difficulties within the CMS do not excuse the lack of a signature of the document, as electronic signing occurs outside the CMS and the appellant failed to substantiate any actual barriers.
The signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP is not part of the Registry’s formal examination under Rule 229 RoP.
The Registry’s formal check is strictly limited to specific rules (for the appeal: Rule 229 RoP). Ensuring compliance with the signature requirement remains the sole and exclusive responsibility of the appellant’s representative.
An application for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP is inadmissible if filed after the absolute six-month longstop deadline.
The appellant’s representative explicitly declined to apply for reinstatement when prompted by the rapporteur, and only requested it orally at the hearing after the six-month longstop period had expired. The Court of Appeal held the request for reinstatement to be inadmissible due to it being filed after the longstop deadline.
Division
Court of Appeal (Luxembourg)
UPC number
UPC-COA-0894/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings (concerning admissibility of an appeal)
Parties
Appellant (Defendant in first instance): Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
vs.
Respondent (Plaintiff in first instance): bellissa HAAS GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 2 223 589
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 4.1 RoP
Rule 9.4 RoP
Rule 224 RoP
Rule 229 RoP
Rule 320 RoP
Art. 73(1) UPCA
