Key takeaways
Granting suspensive effect requires exceptional circumstances where the appellant’s interest outweighs the respondent’s enforcement interest (Art. 74(1) UPCA)
The Court of Appeal confirmed that suspensive effect is an exception to the general rule. The appellant must show that its interest in maintaining the status quo until the appeal is decided outweighs the respondent’s interest in enforcing the first-instance decision.
Three recognised grounds may justify suspensive effect: a manifest error, if the enforcement would render the appeal moot or a violation of fundamental procedural rights.
The application for suspensive effect must set out the reasons, facts, evidence, and legal arguments supporting the request according to R. 223.2 RoP. It must enable the Court of Appeal to decide on the application on its own, potentially without further information. As the appellant has failed to address the merits of the appealed decision, the application for suspesive effect was dismissed for that reason alone.
Speculative future events – such as outcomes of parallel proceedings – cannot justify suspensive effect
For the sake of completeness the court rejeted appellant’s argument that parallel infringement proceedings involving two other patents might require additional product modifications, potentially resulting in a double redesign. The Court held that suspensive effect cannot be ordered on the basis of possible future events whose outcome is entirely uncertain at the time of the application.
Potential multiple patent infringement weighs against granting suspensive effect. The Court stated that if all three patents-in-suit were found to be infringed, the accused product would unlawfully exploit three patents. Granting suspensive effect in such a scenario would meana “reward” for potential multiple patent infringement, which the Court deemed clearly unjustifiable.
Assertions of harm must be concrete and specific; vague claims of financial burden or reputational damage are insufficient
The appellant did not specify what concrete modifications the appealed decision would require, nor the associated costs, effort, or scope. The Court held that such unspecific assertions cannot outweigh the respondent’s legitimate interest in enforcing the first-instance judgment. Concrete and substantiated evidence of disproportionate harm is required.
Division
Court of Appeal (appealed decision: Local Division Düsseldorf)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_44/2026
Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect of appeal
Parties
Appellant / Applicant: ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Respondent: CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
Patent
EP 3 398 487
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 74(1) UPCA, R. 223.1 RoP, R. 223.2 RoP
