Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
CoA, July 22, 2026, Order – Admissibility of New Auxiliary Requests on Appeal Not Determined in Advance, UPC-CoA-63/2026 & UPC-CoA-64/2026
Admissibility of new auxiliary requests is not necessarily determined upfront: The Court did not rule on the admissibility of new auxiliary requests filed with the Statement of grounds of appeal in a separate, preliminary ruling. It found that the assessment of admissibility of those requests required consideration of the procedural history of the case and…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 16, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-42/2026
A former employee may join a confidentiality club on the condition of signing a separate, penalized confidentiality agreement with the party they previously worked for: The respondent argued that their former employee had already been part of the Confidentiality Club established in the first instance. He or she should now also be part of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order concerning an appeal in a revocation action, UPC-CoA-861/2025
A claimant must bear costs if itunnecessarily initiates a revocation action against a defendant who has not given cause and surrenders the patent immediately at the beginning of the proceedings (Art. 69 (1), (2) UPCA): The CoA held that the principles of equity required that the prevailing claimant had to bear the costs even if…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-94/2026
An application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, applied mutatis mutandis, if no final decision has been issued and the opposing party consents, thereby demonstrating that the opposing party has no interest in a decision being made: The CFI found the patent-in-suit to be infringend and dismissed the Counterclaim for…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, UPC_CoA_360/2025, Decision
The right to a court fee refund upon withdrawal is governed by the rules in force on the date of the withdrawal request, not the filing date of the action (R. 370.9 RoP): The Court held that the triggering event for a refund claim is the withdrawal itself. Therefore, amendments to R. 370.9 RoP apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 14 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-76/2026
Suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP may be partially granted on a prima facie basis where thrid-country export controls impede immediate compliance: The Court of Appeal accepted, on a prima facie basis, that: (i) Chinese export-control law applied to the materials; (ii) required administrative procedures were incompatible with the fixed deadline; and (iii) non-compliance could…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 15 July 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_68/2026 – UPC_CoA_72/2026
Court Fees of an Appeal shall be paid in accordance with CFI’s Value of the Action : As a general principle, fees shall be paid in accordance with the value of the action as determined by the Court of First Instance. The parties are not entitled to unilaterally determine or amend the value of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal – Clarification on a conditional counterclaim for revocation – UPC-CoA-40/2026, 16 July 2026, Emboline, Inc. v. AorticLab, srl
Headnotes: Limiting a counterclaim for revocation by making it conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible. There is a need for clarification on such a conditional counterclaim if and when the infringement claimant appeals from a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance. In the event of an appeal by the infringement…
7 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 13, 2026, UPC_CoA_79/2026
Withdrawal before service on respondents is admissible; respondents need not be heard under R. 265.1 RoP if they have no legitimate interest in continuation.: Since the statement of appeal was still undergoing formal examination under R. 229 RoP and had not yet been served on the respondents, the respondents had no legitimate interest in having…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal – Right to Be Heard, Manifest Error, and Suspensive Effect in UPC Patent Appeal Proceedings – UPC-CoA-93/2026, 15 July 2026, Siemens Healthineers AG v. Hologic, Inc.
Headnotes: The principle of the right to be heard according to Art. 76(2) UPCA obliges the court to take note of and give due consideration to the submissions of the parties to the proceedings. Among other things, this principle requires the court to deal with the essential substance of a party’s submissions and, insofar as…
7 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 10, 2026, request for a discretionary review, UPC_CoA_95/2026
Discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP requires demonstrating manifest error or a fundamental question of law with systemic implications purely case.: The Court of Appeal confirmed the standard established in earlier decisions: discretionary review is available only where the contested order is manifestly erroneous or raises a fundamental legal question with broader implications for the…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 13, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_473/2025
Defending Dependent Claims Without Formal Amendment: A patentee can defend dependent claims without filing a formal application to amend under Rule 30 RoP; R. 30 RoP does not require that the patentee submit an auxiliary request as a prerequisite for defending dependent claims. An Application to amend the patent is only required if the patentee…
4 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.