Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Referral to CJEU, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025
UPC refers to CJEU for guidance on whether jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant can be based on a UPC-domiciled co-defendant for acts in a non-UPC Member State (Art. 8(1) in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) Reg. 1215/2012).: The CoA questions if an alleged direct infringer and an alleged intermediary are in the “same situation of fact…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026, Decision concerning public access to the register, UPC_CoA_9/2026, UPC_CoA_10/2026
Reasoned requests regarding access to documents (R. 262.1(b) RoP) shall be made to the relevant division + separate responsibility of Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal: This ensures that the decision will be taken by the judge-rapporteur, who is familiar with the case file. Headnotes: Reasoned requests to the Registry for written pleadings…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, February 24, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025
Rehearing is an exceptional remedy; only fundamental, outcome‑determinative procedural defects justify reopening final appeal decisions (Art. 81(1) UPCA; R. 245, 247 RoP): The court reaffirms the rulings in UPC_CoA_405/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Amgen, and UPC_CoA_402/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Samsung. Especially, it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-937/2025
A stay of UPC proceedings pending a parallel EPO opposition is discretionary, even if a rapid decision of the EPO is expected: Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 18, 2026, suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_19/2026
Applications for suspensive effect against interim cost awards are admissible in provisional measures cases: The Court clarified that the prohibition on suspensive effect in R. 223.5 RoP does not apply to appeals against interim cost awards (R. 220.1(c) RoP), which are considered orders under Art. 62 UPCA. Suspensive effect is an exception granted only (i)…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, final decision, UPC_CoA_302/2025
Pursuant to Art. 75(1) UPCA, where the CoA sets aside a decision of the CFI, it shall, as a rule, give a final decision itself: The CoA, after considering the appeal of the Claimant (and revocation defendant) against the judgment of the CFI in the counterclaim for revocation to be well-founded, must, in order to…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, February 9, 2026, decision concerning a decision of the EPO to reject a request for unitary effect
Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012: Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 requires a patent to be granted for all UPC Member States; a “carve-out” for non-designated states is not permissible. Division UPC Court of Appeal UPC number UPC_CoA_8/2026 Type of proceedings Appeal against a decision concerning an Application to annul a decision…
1 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January, 26, 2026, final order concerning an application for the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025
Proportionality in the protection of confidential information: When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential informaiton and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interest of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties,…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 26, 2026, order regarding a request pusuant to R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_917/2025
Difference between R. 262A RoP request and R. 262.2 RoP request: According to case-law, only R. 262A RoP allows the Court to restrict the use of confidential information by the opposing party and its representatives. A request under R. 262.2 RoP that certain information of written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential does not automatically…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 26, 2026, Order concerning a confidentiality request under R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025, UPC_CoA_791/2025, UPC_CoA_793/2025
Proportionality in the protection of confidential information: When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential information and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties,…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 16, 2026, Order regarding application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_000935/2025
The CoA grants the application for suspensive effect only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that an appeal shall have no suspensive effect.: An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the CoA decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74.1 UPCA). It must…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_5/2025, UPC_CoA_237/2025, UPC_CoA_328/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 60% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_257/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 20% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_2/2026
A discretionary review requires hearing the other party and will be dismissed if it disrupts first-instance proceedings without showing the impugned order was “manifestly erroneous” (R. 220.3 RoP): The court will weigh the appellant’s delays against the respondent’s right to respond. The request for discretionary review may be dismissed to maintain procedural efficiency. Courts have…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 19, 2025, Order concerning the need to adjudicate pursuant to R. 360 RoP, UPC-CoA-906/2025
An appeal can be disposed of under R. 360 RoP if it becomes devoid of purpose, meaning the appellant no longer has a legal interest in its continuation: An appeal against a procedural order excluding evidence becomes moot if the main action is subsequently decided in the appellant’s favor, as no further advantage can be…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 24, 2025, Order concerning an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision, UPC-COA-0000911/2025
Appellate review of cost decisions is limited to a marginal review (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 221 RoP): The Court of Appeal only intervenes if awarded costs are beyond “reasonable and proportionate” or deviate from principles inherent in Art. 69 (1) UPCA and R. 150 et seqq. The Court of Appeal recognizes that the first-instance judge-rapporteur…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.