Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
Court of Appeal, April 7, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_21/2026
Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA can only be ordered against the applicant who is initiating proceedings. Never in the applicant’s favour.: An “applicant” is defined as the person who initiates legal proceedings by filing an application. This one-directional mechanism ensures that the party brought involuntarily into proceedings is protected against unrecoverable costs. At…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_12/2026
A party or its representative may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing, based on an audio recording pursuant to R. 115 RoP. When producing a private transcript, a party or its representative may obtain support of an assistant or support staff, such as a stenographer, working in the presence and under the supervision…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_302/2025, CoA_305/2025
Cost determination proceedings must always be initiated at the Court of First Instance, regardless of whether costs arise from first instance or appeal (R. 150 et seq. RoP): The cost determination procedure under Rules 150 et seq. RoP is a separate proceeding that must be filed with the Court of First Instance. The RoP does…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CoA_409/2025, UPC_CoA_410/2025, UPC_CoA_420/2025
Logging into the UPC’s Case Management System does not constitute an “entering of an appearance” to establish jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.: The mere access to the file, before any active step or defense, is however not sufficient to establish a deliberate choice regarding the jurisdiction of the UPC. Another step is required in…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_899/2025
Failing to contest jurisdiction in first instance forecloses the objection on appeal (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast, R. 19.7 RoP).: By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Defendant in first instance has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_898/2025
Asserting a patent in a non-registered claim version is not categorically excluded in provisional measures proceedings; admissibility depends on the circumstances of each case (R. 211.2 RoP).: There is no automatic additional burden on the Appellee from assertion of a non-registered version. Whether the specific version is suitable for provisional measures is a case-by-case determination.…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 24, 2026, Order on Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_44/2026
Granting suspensive effect requires exceptional circumstances where the appellant’s interest outweighs the respondent’s enforcement interest (Art. 74(1) UPCA): The Court of Appeal confirmed that suspensive effect is an exception to the general rule. The appellant must show that its interest in maintaining the status quo until the appeal is decided outweighs the respondent’s interest in…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_935/2025
The priciple of front loaded prodeedings also applies to applications for suspensive effect according to R. 223 RoP: An application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence, and arguments on which the applicant wishes to rely. The Court of Appeal held that the obligation to present one’s full case as early…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 18, 2026, Order concerning an appeal against an order denying a request under R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_930/2025
Information disclosed to the other party without a confidentiality restriction will generally lose protection as a trade secret or other confidential information: The Court of Appeal confirms that a request under R. 262.2 RoP does not in itself prevent the other party from using or disclosing information already communicated without restriction. Where information has been…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 16, 2026, Order concerning review of an ex parte order for inspection, UPC_CoA_3/2026
In ex parte inspection proceedings, the applicant must disclose all material facts relevant to the request, including those that may weigh against it: The Court of Appeal emphasizes that, in ex parte proceedings, the applicant’s duty is not limited to presenting the facts supporting the requested inspection. Under R. 192.3 RoP, the applicant must also…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 16, 2026, Order concerning a Preliminary Objection, UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025
A preliminary objection may also be deferred to the main proceedings by the panel, not only by the judge-rapporteur: The Court of Appeal clarifies that a decision under R. 20.2 RoP to deal with a preliminary objection in the main proceedings is not reserved to the judge-rapporteur alone. Where the matter has been referred to…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 13, 2026, Order on Preliminary Objections Concerning International Jurisdiction, UPC_CoA_922/2025, UPC_CoA_923/2025, UPC_CoA_924/2025, UPC_CoA_925/2025
The Statement of claim must already set out the facts and legal arguments establishing the UPC’s jurisdiction.: The Court of Appeal makes clear that, as a rule, the claimant must already set out in the Statement of claim the facts and legal arguments necessary to establish the UPC’s jurisdiction. That applies especially where the claimant…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_934/2025
Rule 265 RoP applies to applications for provisional measures, not only to “actions” in the narrow sense.: The Court of Appeal clarified that the term “action” (Klage) in Rule 265.1 RoP encompasses applications for provisional measures. The withdrawal mechanism is therefore not limited to main proceedings such as infringement or revocation actions but extends to…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Decision, UPC_COA_895/2025 & UPC_COA_896/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted under R. 265(1) RoP where the respondent consents and has no legitimate interest in the action being decided.: Under R. 265.1 RoP, a party may withdraw its action as long as no final decision has been rendered. The withdrawal shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 10, 2026, Order, Retroactive Time Extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP – UPC_CoA_37/2026
R. 9.3(a) RoP, not R. 320 RoP, governs deadline extensions for written submissions in ongoing proceedings: R. 320 RoP applies only where missing a time limit causes a party to lose a substantive right or means of redress, such as the right to initiate appeal proceedings or to challenge default judgments. Failure to meet a…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025 – Provisional Measures for Hair Care Appliance Attachment Patent
Claim construction must balance function and structure: interpreting structural claim features solely by their function is insufficient; the physical and spatial configuration taught by the patent must equally be considered (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on Interpretation).: In the specific case the Court of Appeal held that an “overlap” in the patent claim must be geometrically…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 26, 2026, request for discretionary review, UPC_CoA_34/2026
A penalty order under R. 354.4 RoP is appealable only via the leave-to-appeal mechanism: The appellant argued that the CFI’s reference to R. 354.4 RoP in the impugned order created the impression that leave to appeal had already been granted, analogous to Total v. Texas Instruments (CoA_651/2024). The Court of Appeal rejected this, holding that…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.