Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
Court of Appeal, August 19, 2026, Decision, UPC-CoA-908/2025, UPC-CoA-909/2025, UPC-CoA-918/2025
New legal arguments raised on appeal are admissible under R. 222.2 RoP if grounded in facts already submitted before the Court of First Instance: R. 222.2 RoP only allows the Court of Appeal to disregard new facts and evidence, not new legal arguments. Since claim construction is a question of law, the appellant could challenge the first…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 17, 2026, Order on Permissibility and Appeal of Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation, UPC-CoA-40/2026, UPC-CoA-123/2026
Infringement actions and revocation counterclaims are separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA, making a conditional counterclaim an “inter-procedural” condition that determines whether a separate appeal or a cross-appeal must be lodged: Since the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are adjudicated in separate proceedings, a condition linking the counterclaim to the outcome of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA Luxemburg, August 13, 2026, Central Revocation Action, UPC_CoA_884/2025 (appeal from UPC_CFI_231/2024)
Added matter: Omitting a feature disclosed together with claimed features constitutes added matter only where an extricable functional or structural link exists between the omitted and claimed features (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, Art. 65(2) UPCA).: One situation where added matter may arise is when claimed subject-matter is obtained by importing one or more features from a…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 17 August 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_69/2026, UPC_CoA_71/2026, UPC_CoA_72/2026
A ruling on evidence production keeps its own 15-day appeal clock, even when buried inside the main decision: The Munich Local Division rejected NST’s request for Qualcomm’s source code inside the same document as its ruling on infringement. It never mentioned this rejection in the operative part. The Court of Appeal said this does not…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, August 17, 2026, appeal against an order on forfeiture of penalties, UPC_CoA_87/2026
A defendant addressed by an injunction must control third parties and platforms used to market the attacked product, to ensure compliance with the order (Art. 82(4) UPCA, R. 354 RoP).: Where a defendant assigns tasks to third parties to fulfil an injunction, or provides content to a third-party marketing platform, it remains responsible for ensuring…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025
Jurisdiction does not depend on whether the UPCA governs the merits: Knaus Tabbert argued the UPC had no power to decide on acts before 1 June 2023. It pointed to an old opt-out that had been withdrawn, and to caravan sales that spanned both sides of that date. The Court disagreed. The Court must be…
6 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 3, 2026, order concerning penalty orders, UPC-CoA-28/2026
If the Court of Appeal revokes a first-instance decision in merits proceedings in which orders were granted under recurring penalty payments, the revocation has retroactive effect and the order must be regarded as never having had any legal effect. : The revocation of an order of the Court of First Instance granting a permanent injunction…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_121/2026
Suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223.2 RoP is granted only exceptionally, where the applicant proves its interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent’s interest.: Relying on its own case law, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an exception may apply if the impugned…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 5, 2026, order on an application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_118/2026, UPC_CoA_119/2026, UPC_CoA_120/2026
Admissibility of appeals requires that the appellant is adversely affected by the first-instance decision under Art. 73(2) UPCA and R. 220.1 and 220.2 RoP.: An appeal by the claimant is inadmissible if the first-instance order did not rule on the admissibility of the counterclaim against the claimant, but only against the intervener. The claimant is…
5 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.