Key takeaways
An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the order against which the appeal is directed contitutes obvious errors, or if the enforcement of the appealed order or decision would make the appeal devoid of purpose. The fact that a (new) standalone revocation action is pending does generally not suffice for such an exception
The Court follows up on its case law regarding the requirements for an application for suspensive effect (cf. CoA, 6 November 2023, App_584588/2023, UPC_CoA_407/2023; 2 May 2024, APL_20002/2024, UPC_CoA_177/2024; 19 August 2024, APL_ 39884/2024, UPC_CoA_388/2024) and dismisses Defendant’s application for suspensive effect, because they had merely argued that the appealed decision constitutes obvious errors by pointing to the written reasoning of their appeal and to the fact that a new standalone revocation action had been filed with the Central Division. However, an exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect requires the prove that the findings of facts or legal
considerations in the appealed decision are obviously untenable even in a summary assessment.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC_CoA_894/2025
Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect
Parties
APPLICANT (and Defendant in first instance proceedings):
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. (Thalgau, Austria)
RESPONDENT (and Claimant in first instance proceedings):
bellissa HAAS GmbH, (Bodnegg-Rotheiden, Germany)
Patent(s)
EP 2 223 589
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 223 RoP, Art. 74(1) UPCA
