Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.