Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
CoA, November 27, 2025, decision regarding the admissibility of an appeal withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP and the mootness of the intervenor’s appeal, UPC_CoA_70/2025, UPC_CoA_001/2025
An intervenor cannot contradict the party they support: The Court confirms that an intervenor must not act in contradiction to the supported party’s procedural acts or declarations. Consequently, the intervenor cannot oppose that party’s withdrawal of the appeal. The intervenor has no independent appellate standing: Procedural steps by an intervenor are permissible only insofar as…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 7, 2025, UPC_CoA_579/2025
Experimental data which are not disclosed in the patent specification are, as a general rule, not relevant to the interpretation of the patent claims.: The court confirms the principles on claim construction: The patent claim is not only the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent under…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 31, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_755/2025 & UPC_CoA_757/2025
A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.: The Court of Appeal denied the appliant’s request to apply R. 21.2 RoP (stay of the proceedings if an appeal is lodged), as the only existing appeal concerned a different matter (confidentiality) and no appeal on the preliminary objection existed. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 5, 2025, decision of the court of appeal, UPC_CoA_762/2024 and UPC_CoA_773/2024
Substantive content of application filed in non-EPO language: If an (international) patent application is filed in a non-EPO language, the filing of the translation of the application into the language of the proceedings will define the substantive content of the application with regards to the requirements of inadmissible amendments under Art. 123 (2) EPC. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 30, 2025, order on application for security for costs, UPC_CoA_8/2025
An application for security for costs may be filed after the summon for oral hearing has been issued: An application for a security for costs may be filed at any time during proceedings (R. 158.1 RoP first sentence) and may equally be filed in first instance and appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_328/2024, Order of 26 August 2024,…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 14, 2025, appeal against an order re. penalty payments, UPC_CoA_699/2025
System of penalties under the Rules of Procedure, specifics of a penalty order (R. 354.3, R.354.4 RoP): Pursuant to R. 354.3 RoP an order or decision may include an order for the forfeiture of a penalty sum in case of (future) non-compliance with an order (hereinafter: a penalty order). Although this must be considered the…
12 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 3, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, UPC_CoA_683/2024
“Offering” according to Art. 25. a) UPCA: The term “offering” within the meaning of Art. 25 a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously. Offering is to be understood in the economic sense and is not to be based on the legal understanding in the sense of a binding contractual offer. The offer therefore need not…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 6, 2025, Decision regarding rejection of Preliminary Objections in Infringement Actions, UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025, UPC_CoA_291/2025
A preliminary objection to jurisdiction under Rule 19.1(a) RoP can include challenging the validity of the UPCA’s jurisdictional provisions themselves, such as Articles 31 and 32 UPCA.: The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 19.1(a) RoP covers not only factual or procedural jurisdiction disputes but also legal challenges to the validity of the jurisdiction-conferring norms…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2025, decision, UPC_CoA_764/2024, 774/2024
Added matter standard – directly and unambiguously derivable: Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information a person skilled in the art, based on objective considerations and referring to the filing date and using its general technical knowledge, would…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025
Intervention in appeal proceedings is admissible if a direct legal interest in an interim order is shown (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was allowed to intervene in the appeal proceedings because the confidentiality regime for license agreements submitted in the proceedings could affect the Applicant’s business interests by exposing its confidential information to competitors. Legal…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Procedural Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025
Intervention by a third party is admissible if a direct legal interest in the appeal’s outcome is established (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders. The Court found that the Applicant’s interest…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 24, 2025, order on time extension, UPC_CoA: pending
Extension of deadline for filing Statement of grounds of appeal by three working days granted (thereby partially granting the request for a two week extension) without hearing the respondent. : The following reasons were considered in favor of an extension pursuant to R. 9.3 lit. (a) RoP: Two days oral hearing of lead attorney at…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 20, 2025, order on leave of appeal, UPC_CoA_380/2025
UPCA and RoP are not subject to interpretation by the CJEU: The UPC must interpret its own substantive and procedural law in accordance with EU law and, in the rare cases where such interpretation is not possible, must of its own motion refrain from applying any provision or practice that conflicts with a provision of…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.