Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
CoA, May 27, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CoA_622/2025
Further substantiation of already conclusive first-instance submissions is not “new” on appeal: The appellant argued at first instance that circulation pumps are typically implemented as centrifugal pumps. On appeal, additional textbook excerpts were submitted to substantiate this point. The Court held this as concretization of already conclusive submissions. In addition, this submission was not contested…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 26, 2026, order to produce evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026
Irreversible foreign regulatory consequences can justify suspensive effect: The defendants argued two-fold circumstances: (i) complying with the production order may violate Chinese export control regulations, while (ii) non-compliance with the production order would trigger penalties. The Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, these consequences and extended the time limit to comply with the production…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 26, 2026, security for costs, UPC_CoA_74/2026
discretionary review requires the impugned order to be manifestly erroneous : The claimant presented a number of reasons why, in its view, the impugned order is incorrect, including new arguments not raised at first instance. It failed, however, to demonstrate or even argue that the alleged errors are manifest. facts and arguments not raised cannot…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 22, 2026, judgement by default, UPC_CoA_21/2026
For the purposes of R. 355.2 RoP the appellant is regarded as the claimant in the appeal proceedings: A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 15, 2026, order on request for use of English at oral hearing, UPC-CoA-50/2026
The Court of Appeal may authorize oral hearings in a language other than the language of proceedings, without formally changing the language of the case, based on considerations of pragmatism and procedural efficiency: The appellants’ representative understood French but lacked sufficient oral proficiency for optimal representation. The Court permitted both parties to plead in English…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 19, 2026, order on request for a discretionary review, UPC-CoA-67/2026
Requirements for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP: When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 30, 2026, order rejecting appeal as inadmissible, UPC_CoA_1/2026
Ex officio assessment of admissibility: The Court of Appeal verifies ex officio compliance with the time limits and rules governing the appeal. When deciding on the admissibility of an appeal, an order rejecting the appeal as inadmissible does not exceed the scope of the claims (sec. 18, sec. 32). Strict application of rules governing the procedures…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 27, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_917/2025
Waiver of defence relating to invalidity: Unlike proceedings on the merits, where the Statement of defence shall include a Counterclaim for revocation (R. 25.1 RoP) if there is an assertion that the patent alleged to be infringed is invalid, an invalidity defence raised in proceedings for provisional measures is not a separate action. Similarly, a…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, standing judge, April 28, 2026, order on request for discretionary review, UPC_CoA_56/2026
Request for retroactive term extension should be made as soon as possible.: In the case at issue, the Respondent filed its implicit request for retroactive term extension as an alternative request to the request for the re-establishment of rights within the time period for the latter. The Court of Appeal held that it was not…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 24, 2026, Order concerning an application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP), UPC_COA_57/2026
Suspensive effect is exceptional and rarely granted for procedural orders: The Court confirmed three categories of exceptional circumstances that may justify a stay: (1) irreversibility of enforcement consequences; (2) manifest error in the impugned order; and (3) evident breach of fundamental procedural rights liable to affect the outcome of the proceedings. Under Art. 74(3) UPCA,…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 17, 2026, Order concerning a request for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_901/2025
Non-technical features (on their own a “non-invention” acc. to Art. 52(2) EPC) must not be excluded from the inventive step assessment if they contribute to the technical character of the invention through interaction with other claim features (headnote 1; para. 112): The Court held that the interrelationship and functioning of all claim features must be…
6 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.