Key takeaways
Order on suspensive effect of appeal if impugned decision is evidently incorrect.
The suspensive effect may be ordered in particular if the order against which the appeal is directed is evidently incorrect. Whether there is an evident violation of the law is assessed on the basis of the factual findings and legal considerations that provide the foundation of the imugned decision. If these findings or legal considerations already prove to be unsustainable in the summary examination, generally, the suspensive effect must be ordered. As a rule, this applies regardless of whether the imugned decision may prove to be correct based on alternative findings or on the basis of other legal considerations.
Application for suspensive effect must be suitable in itself to enable decision making. Specific references to first instance submissions allowed.
An application for suspensive effect must in itself enable the court of appeal to decide on this application, if necessary without further information. References to text passages in pleadings and documents in the files of the court of first instance are admissible, provided they are sufficiently specific.
No liability as intermediary under Art. 63.1 s. 2 UPCA for the CEO of a patent infringing company.
A chief executive officer (CEO) of a patent infringing company represents this company. Therefore, this company cannot be a “third party” in relation to this CEO within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA and Art. 11 of Directive 2004/48. Therefore, liability under Art. 63 (1) s. 2 UPCA as an intermediary cannot arise solely from the function as CEO of a patent infringing company.
Provision of security to be ordered when decision or order rendered.
A decision or order can be made subject to the rendering of a security by a party to the other party. However, pursuant to Rule 352.1 RoP such security must be ordered when the decision or order is issued. This follows from its wording and from its systematic position in Chapter 10 (decisions and orders).
Division
Court of Appeal, panel 2
UPC number
UPC_CoA_549/2024; APL_51838/2024
Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect of an appeal on the merits
Parties
Belkin GmbH (Appellant), Belkin International Inc. (Appellant), Belkin Limited (Appellant), 3 CEOs (Appellants, names redacted); Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Appellee)
Patent(s)
EP 2 867 997
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 223.2 RoP, Rule 352.1 RoP, Art. 74 UPCA, Art. 63 (1) 2 UPCA
