Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
CoA, November 5, 2026, order on application for confidentiality, UPC_CoA_133/2026, UPC_CoA_134/2026
A request under Rule 262.2 RoP does not automatically grant provisional protection against disclosure of the information by the other party: Confirming its decision in the matter Strabag v Swarco and Chainzone (CoA, Order dated 1 August 2025, UPC_CoA_70/2025), the CoA emphasized that (i) a party and its representatives may only be subject to restrictions…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 2, 2026, order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_176/2026 & UPC_CoA_177/2026
No suspensive effect following non-final EPO revocation (Art. 74(1), 33(10) UPCA; R. 118.2(b), 223 RoP) : Appeals do not suspend enforcement under Art. 74(1) UPCA. Suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP requires exceptional circumstances, such as an evident error or futility. Compensable financial losses do not suffice, and the patent’s imminent expiry reinforces the patentee’s…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, November 2, 2026, Decision on application to set aside a decision by default, UPC_CoA_935/2025
Alternative service under R. 275 RoP need not mirror the domestic service methods of the State of destination (R. 274.1(b), R. 275.4 RoP): An alternative method authorised under R. 275 RoP need not be a method prescribed by the internal law of the State of destination for the service of documents in domestic proceedings. Otherwise,…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 5, 2026, decision on cost, UPC_CoA_49/2026
Representation costs must be sufficiently substantiated with itemized breakdowns of services, dates, hours, and rates: For the unsuccessful party to be able to comment on both the necessity and the proportionality of the costs for representation, the applicant for a cost decision should provide a sufficiently substantiated specification of the costs in view of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 3, 2026, order on application for leave to appeal, UPC_CoA_84/2026
The application for leave to appeal itself must specify why the appeal should be heard: The CoA held that an application for leave to appeal must enable the standing judge to assess whether the conditions for leave to appeal are met solely on the basis of the application and the impugned decision, taking into account…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 21, 2026, final decision, UPC-CoA-582/2025 et all.
Public prior use: Making available a manufacturing method by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC: A manufacturing method of a publicly used product is made available to the public by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC if, at the application date, the person skilled in the art could establish the method without undue burden by…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 16, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_145/2026
Discretionary decisions on belated patent amendments under Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP are subject to limited appellate review: Applications to amend a patent under Rule 30.2 RoP or amend a case under Rule 263 RoP fall within the first-instance court’s judicial discretion. The Court of Appeal will not substitute its own assessment unless the appellant…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 21, 2026, order on the admissibility of appeals, UPC_CoA_149/2026, UPC_CoA_150/2026
An application to change the language of proceedings before the Central Division is not a claim but an exceptional procedural application (Art. 49(6) UPCA, R. 334(h) RoP): According to established case law, the term “case-management decision or order” (R. 333.1 RoP) is to be interpreted broadly. The rejection of an application to change the language…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 16, 2026, Application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-97/2026
Written pleadings themselves must bear the signature of the party (R. 4.1 RoP): Written pleadings and other documents must be signed and lodged with the Registry or the relevant sub-registry in electronic form (R. 4.1 RoP). The written pleadings themselves must bear the signature of the party. It is not sufficient for a party’s representative…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 13, 2026, order on application for leave to appeal, UPC-CoA-88/2026 and UPC-CoA-89/2026
No leave to appeal re. application for re-establishement of rights: Headnote: An application for leave to appeal pursuant to R. 157 RoP in conjunction with R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it concerns a rejection of the application for re-establishment of rights. According to R. 320.7 RoP, there shall be no right to appeal…
1 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_146/2026, UPC_CoA_147/2026, UPC_CoA_148/2026
Foreseeable professional commitments and school holidays do not amount to “exceptional circumstances” under R. 9.3(a) RoP: Representatives before the Court are expected to organise their professional activities and make appropriate arrangements within their legal teams so as to ensure compliance with procedural time periods. A heavy workload resulting from other pending cases does not, in…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 8, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_73/2026
The Court of Appeal reviews ex officio whether a statement of appeal is validly signed under R. 224, R. 4.1 RoP, irrespective of when a party raises the objection✓ Even a belated objection by the respondent regarding the signature of the appellant’s statement of appeal must be examined by the Court on its own motion,…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_99/2026 & UPC_CoA_110/2026
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…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CoA_126/2026
Even if the defendant has filed the counterclaim for revocation only conditionally, the defendant may still file an appeal: A defendant who has filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation has a legitimate interest in appealing a first-instance decision refusing to rule on an action for revocation, even after it has been determined that there was…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_40/2026
No further pleadings or evidence are permitted once the appellate proceedings have reached an advanced procedural stage: The Court confirmed its broad case-management discretion to prevent additional written submissions at a late stage, consistent with the RoP’s objective of efficient, front-loaded proceedings. An appellant’s request to disregard a witness statement and related submissions as late-filed,…
1 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 30, 2026, order, UPC_CoA_164/2026
Application for public access to the register: An application for public access to the register must be filed in the language of the proceedings. Division Court of Appeal UPC number UPC-CoA-164/2026 Type of proceedings Application for public access to the register proceedings Parties Hurtel Sp. z o.o. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Patent(s) EP 2 867 997…
1 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-140/2026: Re-establishment of Rights for Appeal Concerning Conditional Revocation Counterclaims
Re-establishment of rights (R. 320.1 RoP) requires showing that appeal deadlines were missed despite all due care due to reasons beyond control. Under Rule 320.1 RoP, a party may obtain re-establishment of rights if it missed a statutory deadline despite exercising all due care required by the circumstances. The applicant must demonstrate that the failure…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.