Home » UPC decisions » Luxembourg Court of Appeal » Court of Appeal, February 24, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025

Court of Appeal, February 24, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025

3 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The court reaffirms the rulings in UPC_CoA_405/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Amgen, and UPC_CoA_402/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Samsung. Especially, it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that, without the defect, the same decision would not have been made. In this case, the claimant’s allegations primarily reiterated previous arguments or expressed disagreement with the court’s assessment; neither constitutes a fundamental defect nor impacts the outcome.

The claimant’s objections were previously brought forward to and assessed in the order under review.

The claimant’s failure to provide ordered security justified dismissal by default. It is only under exceptional circumstances that the Court may derogate from the general rule and the reference to the status quo of the action may not justify such a derogation.

Division

Court of Appeal (Luxembourg)

UPC number

UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025

Type of proceedings

Applications for rehearing (Art. 81(1) UPCA; R. 245, 247, 248 RoP) and request for suspensive effect (R. 252 RoP)

Parties

Applicant/Appellant (Defendant in the Rule 158 application; Claimant in the main infringement action): Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Respondent (Applicant in the Rule 158 application; Defendant in the main infringement action): Microsoft Corporation

Patent(s)

EP 2 671 173

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 245 RoP (Application for rehearing)
R. 247 RoP (Grounds for rehearing)
R. 248 RoP (Admissibility; objection requirement)
R. 350 RoP (Content of decisions)
R. 158.4–.5 RoP (Security for costs; consequence of non‑compliance)
R. 355.1(a) RoP (Decision by default)
R. 252 RoP (No suspensive effect unless ordered)
Art. 81 UPCA (Rehearing; finality of decisions)
Art. 76(2)–(3) UPCA (Right to be heard; free evaluation of evidence)
Art. 37 UPCA (Decision by default)
Art. 6 ECHR (Fair trial)


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