Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
Court of Appeal, October 3, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, UPC_CoA_683/2024
“Offering” according to Art. 25. a) UPCA: The term “offering” within the meaning of Art. 25 a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously. Offering is to be understood in the economic sense and is not to be based on the legal understanding in the sense of a binding contractual offer. The offer therefore need not…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 6, 2025, Decision regarding rejection of Preliminary Objections in Infringement Actions, UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025, UPC_CoA_291/2025
A preliminary objection to jurisdiction under Rule 19.1(a) RoP can include challenging the validity of the UPCA’s jurisdictional provisions themselves, such as Articles 31 and 32 UPCA.: The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 19.1(a) RoP covers not only factual or procedural jurisdiction disputes but also legal challenges to the validity of the jurisdiction-conferring norms…
5 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2025, decision, UPC_CoA_764/2024, 774/2024
Added matter standard – directly and unambiguously derivable: Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information a person skilled in the art, based on objective considerations and referring to the filing date and using its general technical knowledge, would…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025
Intervention in appeal proceedings is admissible if a direct legal interest in an interim order is shown (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was allowed to intervene in the appeal proceedings because the confidentiality regime for license agreements submitted in the proceedings could affect the Applicant’s business interests by exposing its confidential information to competitors. Legal…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Procedural Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025
Intervention by a third party is admissible if a direct legal interest in the appeal’s outcome is established (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders. The Court found that the Applicant’s interest…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 24, 2025, order on time extension, UPC_CoA: pending
Extension of deadline for filing Statement of grounds of appeal by three working days granted (thereby partially granting the request for a two week extension) without hearing the respondent. : The following reasons were considered in favor of an extension pursuant to R. 9.3 lit. (a) RoP: Two days oral hearing of lead attorney at…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 20, 2025, order on leave of appeal, UPC_CoA_380/2025
UPCA and RoP are not subject to interpretation by the CJEU: The UPC must interpret its own substantive and procedural law in accordance with EU law and, in the rare cases where such interpretation is not possible, must of its own motion refrain from applying any provision or practice that conflicts with a provision of…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA UPC, August 15, 2025, order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_737/2025
No evident error if decision’s reasons are not yet available: Suspensive effect of an appeal may be granted if the order against which the appeal is directed is evidently erroneous. No evident error can be identified in the contested decision if the reasons for the decision are not yet available. The assumption of an evident…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, order of August 15, 2025, order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_740/2025
Application for suspensive effect is inadmissable if no appeal is filed: It is not possible to apply for suspensive effect before an appeal is lodged. This follows from Art. 74 (1) UPCA stating that an appeal has no suspensive effect unless decided otherwise by the CoA. In cases of extreme urgency the applicant may apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 21, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_764/2024
No further written submissions after the oral hearing: Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, upon a reasoned request by a party submitted before the closure of the written procedure, allow the exchange of further written submissions. After this point, there is no basis for submitting additional written submissions, particularly not without prior approval…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 21, 2025, order on simultaneous interpretation, UPC_CoA_317/2025
Request for simultaneous interpretation pursuant to Rule 109.2 RoP must be justified: In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a request for a court-arranged simultaneous interpretation…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 25, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_758/2015 and UPC_CoA_759/2025
Application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP): Although R.223.5 RoP provides that there shall be no suspensive effect for an order pursuant to (amongst other) R.220.2 RoP, the Court of Appeal considers that this does not preclude that an application for suspensive effect is lodged – and if justified, granted – for such orders based…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 13, 2025, order concerning an application for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_446/2025, UPC_CoA_520/2025
Mere marketing authorisation for generics does not constitute imminent infringement (Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 206.2(c) RoP): The grant or application for a marketing authorisation alone is insufficient to establish imminent infringement. Additional steps are required for the threshold to be met, and the Court of Appeal clarified that this threshold can be crossed when a…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 9, 2025, order, UPC_CoA_430/2025
Case management orders, such as orders concerning security for costs, require panel review before appeal: R. 333.1 RoP mandates that case maagement orders issued by the judge-rapporteur (e.g. security for costs orders) must be reviewed by the panel of the CFI before an appeal to the CoA is admissible: Judge-rapporteur’s decision to grant leave to…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 9, 2025, order concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_431/2025
Failure to lodge Statement of response within the time limit of R. 235.2 RoP: Under R. 9.2 RoP the Court may disregard any step, fact, evidence or argument which a party has not taken or submitted in accordance with a time limit. The CoA will, however, have to examine whether the grounds of appeal are…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 22, 2025, decision on withdrawal of cost assessment application, UPC_CoA_845/2024
Jurisdiction for Cost Assessment: The Court of Appeal clarified that the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over cost assessment applications. The applicant had mistakenly filed the application with the Court of Appeal instead of the competent Local Division. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant for cost assessment to withdraw their application without…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 23, 2025, order on withdrawal of appeal, UPC_CoA_526/2025
Withdrawal of Appeal and Partial Reimbursement of Fees: The Court allowed the appellant to withdraw their appeal after an out-of-court settlement, as the respondent consented and had no further legitimate interest in the proceedings (R. 265 RoP). The appellant received a 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees, as the withdrawal occurred before the written proceedings…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.