Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
Court of Appeal, May 12, 2025, order on appeal against order for security of costs, especially when the action has become devoid of purpose, UPC_CoA_328/2024
Admissibility of Appeals: An appeal against an order for security of costs, brought together with an appeal against an order on provisional measures remains admissible, even if the request has become devoid of purpose (here because the appellant has later made it clear that it no longer requests provisional measures). The appellant retains a legal…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 11, 2025, Amendment of claim and addition of a defendant, UPC_CoA_169/2025
Discretion of the Court of First Instance when applying Rules on amendment of claims and addition of parties (Rule 263 and 305 RoP).: The Court of First Instance has a broad discretion when considering allowance of amendments to claims and the addition of parties under Rule 263 and 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal clarified…
5 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
UPC Court of Appeal, order of April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_5/2025 (see also UPC_CoA_237/2025)
Order regarding request for stay of proceedings (R. 295 RoP): In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision soon…
1 min Reading time→ -
UPC Court of Appeal, Order of April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_768/2024
Claim construction principles: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently. The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, April 18, 2025, application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_166/2025
Suspensive effect of an appeal must only be ordered in exceptional circumstances: The application for suspensive effect is admissible but must be dismissed as unfounded. A order on suspensive effect may be considered, for instance, if the appealed order or decision is manifestly erroneous, or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, March 24, 2025, procedural order UPC_CoA_835/2024
Submissions after the conclusion of written proceedings are not admissible: Additional grounds of appeal that are not raised within the time limit for the statement of grounds of appeal provided for in R. 224.2 RoP are inadmissible, R. 233.3 RoP A further exchange of written pleadings may be permitted at the reasoned request of a…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 26, 2025, allocation of costs, UPC_CoA_290/2024
Prevailing claimant to exceptionally bear costs: An exception to the general rule of Art. 69 (1) UPCA, which requires the unsuccessful party to bear the reasonable legal costs and expenses of the successful party, applies if a claimant files a revocation action without the patent holder prompting it and the holder surrenders the patent immediately…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_523/2024
Price erosion is an important factor to be considered when evaluating the necessity of provisional measures. : A move from a market situation where only one product is available, to one where there are two competing products, can be expected to lead not just to price pressure but to a permanent price erosion. This risk…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 19, 2025, order on release of cost security, UPC_CoA_217/2024
R. 352.2 RoP is applied by way of analogy with regard to the release of security for legal costs.: R. 352.2 RoP directly concerns the release of a security for enforcement but should be applied by way of analogy in a case in which security for legal costs has been deposited and afterwards the action…
1 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 14, 2025, order on request for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_382/2024
Claim construction regarding means-plus-function features.: Means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function (headnote 1, para. 47). Added matter assessment.: General provisions: The Court must ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using their common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of…
7 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 12, 2025, Order concerning representation, UPC_CoA_634/2024, UPC_CoA_635/2024, UPC_CoA_636/2024
Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC.: All applicants of any application or action under the UPCA and RoP are required to be represented, except if the RoP waive the requirement of representation. An applicant under R. 262.1(b)…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, February 12, 2025, order for the protection of confidential information UPC_CoA_621/2024
Pursuant to R. 262A.6 RoP the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the rights of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each party…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 11, 2025, Appeal of a Panel Review Order regarding right to represent, UPC_CoA_563/2024, APL_53716/2024
Representation of parties in proceedings before the UPC, Art. 48 UPCA: No corporate representative of a legal person or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 15, 2025 order concerning the need to adjudicate UPC_CoA_584-2024
No need to adjudiacte also when appeal has become devoid of purpose: R.360 RoP applies not only when the action itself has become devoid of purpose, but also when the appeal has become devoid of purpose. According to R.360 RoP the Court may at any time, on the application of a party or its own…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 15, 2025, order on withdrawal, UPC_CoA_629/2024
Withdrawal of the action during appeal proceedings possible: After the first instance infringement decision was appealed, the decision on withdrawal is within the competence of the CoA. According to R. 265.1 RoP, the decision of the first instance is not final. Therefore, admissibility of the withdrawal of the infringment action is not precluded during appeal.…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 14, 2024, order on panel review, UPC_CoA_651/2024
Order on security is case management and open for panel review (R. 333 RoP): Judge-rapporteur can issue an order for security of costs. There is no wording in R. 158 RoP that such orders shall be adopted by the panel. There is a broad scope for review of actions of the judge-rapporteur, as laid down…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 9, 2025, order concerning public access to the register, UPC_CoA_480/2024; UPC_CoA_481/2024
Public has a right to access court records: This right is enshrined in Rule 262.1(b) RoP and promotes transparency and trust in the court system. The Court of Appeal emphasized that this right allows the public to understand court decisions and scrutinize the court’s handling of disputes. The Appellant argued against public access, claiming it…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.