Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
CoA, July 8, 2026, appeal decision regarding request for provisional measures, UPC-CoA-36/2026
An invalidity attack filed for the first time on appeal, will be considered inadmissible absent a compelling justification for its late submission (R. 222.2 RoP): When exercising its discretion under R. 222.2 RoP, the CoA weighs the justification for the late submission, its relevance to the appeal, and the position of the opposing party. A…
6 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 6, 2026, Decision regarding application to withdraw (R. 265 RoP) and reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.9 RoP), UPC-CoA-29/2026, UPC-CoA-30/2026
R. 265.1 RoP applies equally to withdrawals of appeals and first instance actions, provided no final decision has yet been issued: The CoA confirmed its consistent case law that R. 265.1 RoP, which permits withdrawal of an action before a final decision is issued, applies equally to appeal proceedings. With both appellant and respondent having…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, 3 July 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_302/2025 & UPC_CoA_305/2025
An application for a cost decision must always be filed with the CFI even if the costs arise exclusively from appeal proceedings: Proceedings for cost decision is a distinct, separate procedure under Rules 150 et seq. RoP, always commencing before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Otherwise, no appeal against cost decisions would be possible…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, 02 July 2026, order on security for costs, UPC-CoA-935/2025
Art. 69(4) UPCA permits an order for security for costs only against the applicant: Art. 69(4) UPCA permits an order for security for costs only against the applicant, but not in the applicant’s favour. “Applicant” is the party that initiates the relevant proceedings by lodging the procedural act by which those proceedings are commence (see…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 29, 2026, CoA Partially Overturns Broad Evidence Production Order: Limits on Scope Clarified, UPC_CoA_57/2026
The CoA partially overturned a broad evidence production order of the LD Copenhagen and clarified the limits on the scope. The Court of First Instance had ordered Appellant to produce, subject to a penalty payment of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay, complete construction drawings, manuals and “other materials” provided to customers.Appellant appealed,…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 29, 2026, Appeal decision on public access to file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, UPC_CoA_52/2026 and UPC_CoA_53/2026
In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information. Appellant challenged the decision,…
6 min Reading time→ -
UPC-CoA-066/2026, Decision of the President of the Court of Appeal, 29 June 2026
An application to remove an unauthorised application to opt out pursuant to R. 5A RoP must: a) either demonstrate that the person who filed the application to opt out, at the time of filing the application, was not the person shown in each national patent register for which the European patent was validated as the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 29, 2026, Denies Leave to Appeal Cost Decision
Appeals of cost decisions are subject to a limited ‘marginal review’ for reasonableness and proportionality, not a full re-assessment (R. 221 RoP, R. 156.2 RoP): This limited review is justified because the first-instance judge-rapporteur, who decides on costs in writing under R. 156.2 RoP, has managed the case throughout and is best positioned to assess…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 2 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-19/2026
Urgency for provisional measures is assessed per patent: delaying filing to consolidate all patents into one application can constitute unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP.: A patent holder need not assert all patents in a single application for provisional measures. If sufficient information exists to file regarding some patents, waiting to consolidate all patents into…
6 min Reading time→ -
CoA, 22 June 2026, order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP), UPC-CoA 50/2026
Commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) requires relations between defendants regarding commercial activities for the alleged infringing product or range.: These activities include research and development, manufacturing, sales, and distribution of the product or product range. Membership in the same corporate group can establish a commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) if each defendant’s activity relates to…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, 22 June 2026, order on appeal against a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP), CoA-4/2026 and CoA-13/2026
Article 33(1), third paragraph UPCA, establishes alternative, not exceptional, competence for the Central Division regarding defendants outside Contracting Member States.: The provisions do not limit the Central Division’s competence for non-CMS defendants, nor does its placement imply a hierarchy over local or regional divisions. The Central Division is competent for defendants domiciled outside CMS (Art.…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 18, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_907/2026
New facts and evidence on appeal face a strict admissibility threshold under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP.: The Court considers three factors:(a) whether the party can justify that the submissions could not reasonably have been made at first instance,(b) the relevance of the new submissions, and(c) the position of the other party.Evidence relating…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_85/2026
A value-in-dispute determination is a procedural decision governed by R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoP, even when included in the operative part of a final decision: The appellate regime of an order depends on its substantive nature, not on whether it appears alongside other orders in a final decision. A value-in-dispute determination could have been…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order of the Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_61/2026
Market data from providers requiring confidentiality qualifies as confidential information under R. 262.2, R. 262A.1 RoP and Art. 58 UPCA, extending beyond trade secrets per Art. 39(2) TRIPS: The Court confirmed that R. 262 and R. 262A RoP protect not only trade secrets within the meaning of Art. 39(2) TRIPS Agreement but also “other confidential…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 2, 2026, appeal judgment in infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CoA_312/2025 et al
On international jurisdiction: The CoA confirms long-arm jurisdiction for European patents in accordance with the CJEU’s decision in BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22), i.e. where the Defendant is domiciled in a UPC contracting member state (headnotes 5-8). In this course, the CoA clarifies that the UPC cannot decline jurisdiction in such case, confirming the CJEU’s decision…
13 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CoA_48/2026
The qualification of a party as an SME or the submission of a declaration purporting to establish a party’s SME status pursuant to R. 370.8 RoP is not, in itself, sufficient to dispense with the obligation for said party to provide a security for costs in accordance with R. 158 RoP, if the requirements for…
6 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 22, 2026, order concerning an application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_61/2026
Signing and lodging documents pursuant to R. 4.1 RoP: The procedural document itself must bear an electronic signature. It is not sufficient to simply “sign submission” in the CMS after the upload of a submission. This is necessary to guarantee the authenticity of a procedural document and to exclude the risk that it is not…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.