Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
Court of Appeal, December 29, 2025, decision on revocation action, UPC_CoA_71/2025
Accuracy of translation to be checked at an early stage: The Appellant argued that a translation of a Korean prior art document filed by the Respondent in first instance was incorrect and at best inaccurate and filed own translations on appeal. The CoA holds that these translations are late filed and shall be disregarded. Given…
9 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, Standing Judge, December 29, 2025, order regarding an application for suspensive effect, UPC-COA-0000936/2025
No “manifestly” erroneous decision if point of contention is a complex issue requiring in-depth-analysis: The Appellant argues that the impunged order of the LD Mannheim is based on the evidently incorrect assumption that a decision by the UK Court on a request for a court determined license by the Appellant would be equal to an…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 23, 2025, decision on application for withdrawal, UPC_CoA_523/2024
No waiver of court fees in the context of an application for withdrawal: In principle, pursuant to Rule 250 RoP, the court may waive payment of the fee for a rehearing in the circumstances contemplated by Rule 245.2(a) or (b) RoP (fundamental procedural defect or criminal offence). However, it can only be decided in the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 22, 2025, decision on access to written pleadings and evidence, UPC-COA-0000886/2025
Interest in accessing documents not precluded by additional commercial interests: A law firm may also be a member of the public within the meaning of R. 262.1 (b) RoP, see already order of 9 January 2024, UPC_CoA_480, UPC_CoA_481/2024, Abbott v Powel Gilbert. The fact that a law firm (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) also pursues…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 19, 2025, decision on public access to the register, UPC_CoA_523/2024
No access to the register for a company that commercializes access to its subscribers: The objectives of balancing the interests pursuant to Art. 45 UPCA, and the requirement of representation ensure the proper conduct of proceedings, and would be compromised if access to written pleadings and evidence was granted pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP to…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 17, 2025, procedural order re. application of suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_926/2025, UPC_CoA_927/2025
Exception to the rule of no suspensive effect for appeals against first-instance orders granting access to files: Grounds for ordering suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA may exist where the Court of First Instance has granted an application for access to pleadings and evidence pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, and it is likely that this…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 9, 2025, appeal in proceedings re. damages, UPC_CoA_8/2025
Failure to monitor the patent landscape can establish “reasonable grounds to know”, Art. 68(1) UPCA: Under Art. 68(1) UPCA, the Court shall, at the request of the injured party, order the infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in a patent infringing activity, to pay the injured party damages appropriate to the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 2, 2025, procedural order re. application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_894/2025
An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the order against which the appeal is directed contitutes obvious errors, or if the enforcement of the appealed order or decision would make the appeal devoid of purpose. The fact that a (new) standalone revocation action is pending…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 1, 2025, appeal against an order re. change of the language of proceedings
When deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account. Relevant circumstances should primarily be related to the specific case and the position of the parties themselves, in particular the position of the defendant (headnote).: The…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 25, 2025, Decision on competence of the divisions, amendments of the patent, added matter, novelty, inventive step, scope of protection, permanent injunctions, interim award of costs, UPC_CoA_464/2024 etc.
The “same parties” requirement for exclusive local division jurisdiction under Art. 33(4) UPCA means the parties must be identical legal entities.: A revocation action by a claimant company is not barred by a pending infringement action against its parent and another subsidiary, as they are not identical parties. An exception for res judicata effect did not apply…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 25, 2025, Decision on claim interpretation medical use claim, added matter, sufficiency, inventive step, reasonable expectation of success, UPC_CoA_528/2024, UPC_CoA_529/2024
Inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) exists if scientific uncertainty at the priority date prevented a ‘reasonable expectation of success’, even if there was a ‘hope to succeed’.: The Court found that uncertainty about the relative contribution of a protein’s intracellular versus extracellular pathways in vivo was a critical factor preventing a reasonable expectation of success. Prior art…
5 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.