Key takeaways
No stay of appeal proceedings under R. 118.2(b) and R. 242.2(a) RoP where the pending nullity action is not between the same parties.
A stay of appeal proceedings pending a decision on invalidity under R. 118.2(b) and R. 242.2(a) RoP requires that the nullity action be pending between the same parties. A nullity action brought by a third party does not meet this precondition, even invoking R. 295(m) RoP.
Where an appeal challenges both the infringement finding and the dismissal of the revocation counterclaim, the appellate court must itself review the invalidity grounds raised by the appellant. This removes any need to await a third party’s separate nullity action before the Central Division.
A stay cannot be used to circumvent the restrictions on new submissions on appeal under R. 222.2 RoP.
An appellant may introduce new requests, facts and evidence on appeal only if R. 222.2 RoP’s conditions are met. Staying proceedings to await arguments raised by a third party in separate proceedings, which could not otherwise be introduced on appeal, would improperly circumvent that rule.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC_CoA_99/2026, UPC_CoA_110/2026
Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings – Request for a stay of proceedings (R. 295(m) RoP)
Parties
Appellants (Defendants and Counterclaimants at first instance): Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific, Inc., Canfield Scientific Europe, BV, Canfield Scientific s.r.l., ESTHETEC SAS (together “Canfield”)
vs.
Respondent (Claimant and Counter-Defendant at first instance): QUANTIFICARE S.A.
Patent(s)
EP 3 156 843
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 118.2(b) RoP, R. 242.2(a) RoP, R. 295(m) RoP, R. 222.2 RoP, Preamble paras. 3 and 7 RoP
