Key takeaways
The priciple of front loaded prodeedings also applies to applications for suspensive effect according to R. 223 RoP
An application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence, and arguments on which the applicant wishes to rely. The Court of Appeal held that the obligation to present one’s full case as early as possible is not limited to the main proceedings but extends equally to ancillary applications.
A subsequent application for suspensive effect is inadmissible unless it is based on submissions that could not reasonably have been made earlier
The appellant filed a second application for suspensive effect together with its Statement of Grounds of Appeal, relying on arguments identical or very similar to those in its first application. The Court of Appeal declared this second application inadmissible because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the submissions could not reasonably have been included in the first application.
Merely repackaging previously raised arguments or adding arguments that were available earlier does not justify a renewed application for suspensive effect
The appellant acknowledged that its second application restated arguments from the first, claiming they should “be now more clear in view of the full grounds of appeal.” An additional reference to parallel national proceedings was likewise not substantiated as to why it could not have been raised earlier. Thus, the Court found the application for suspensive effect inadmissible.
Division
Court of Appeal (appeal from The Hague Local Division)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_935/2025 (impugned decision: UPC_CFI_499/2024, ACT_48877/2024)
Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP)
Parties
Appellant / Applicant: n.n.
Respondent: Amycel, LLC
Patent
EP 1 993 35
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 74(1) UPCA, R. 223 RoP, Preamble RoP (paragraph 7, last sentence), R. 355 RoP, R. 275.3(b) RoP
