Key takeaways
The CoA grants the application for suspensive effect only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that an appeal shall have no suspensive effect.
An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the CoA decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74.1 UPCA).
It must be examined whether, on the basis of the circumstances, the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent’s interest. An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the appealed order or decision is manifestly erroneous, or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence of suspensive effect (CoA 24 November 2025, UPC_CoA_000911/2025, Suinno v Microsoft; CoA 20 May 2025, UPC_CoA_430/2025 APL_23093/2025 App_23094/2025, Chint v. Jingao).
The requirement of exceptional circumstances has to be established by the applicant.
According to R. 223.2 RoP, the application for suspensive effect shall set out (a) the reasons why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect and (b) the facts, evidence and arguments relied on.
The applicant claimed that the sending of registered letters would be impossible to revert and that the publication of a message on the website of the applicant would entail “irreversible consequences”, without establishing that the CFI decision (impugned decision) is manifestly erroneous. Even if the Court were to accept that the consequences of these orders are not fully reversible, it does not follow that the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence of suspensive effect and that the applicant’s interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on appeal outweighs the respondent’s legitimate interest informing the applicant’s customers of the decision.
The mere assertion that payment of interim damages to the respondent would have “serious consequences” on the applicant’s business, without any further substantiation, is not sufficient to outweigh the respondent’s interest in the enforcement of the CFI decision.
The CoA decides without having heard the respondent.
Since the CoA must decide on an application for suspensive effect without delay (R. 223.3 RoP) and the outcome is in favour of the respondent, the CoA decides without having hear the respondent.
Division
Court of Appeal Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC_CoA_000935/2025
Type of proceedings
Infringement Action, Application for suspensive effect
Parties
Applicant (Defendant in CFI infringement action): Not known
Respondent (Claimant in CFI infringement action): Amycel LLC
Patent(s)
EP 1 993 350
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 223 RoP, Art. 74.1 UPCA
