Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
CoA UPC, August 15, 2025, order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_737/2025
No evident error if decision’s reasons are not yet available: Suspensive effect of an appeal may be granted if the order against which the appeal is directed is evidently erroneous. No evident error can be identified in the contested decision if the reasons for the decision are not yet available. The assumption of an evident…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, order of August 15, 2025, order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_740/2025
Application for suspensive effect is inadmissable if no appeal is filed: It is not possible to apply for suspensive effect before an appeal is lodged. This follows from Art. 74 (1) UPCA stating that an appeal has no suspensive effect unless decided otherwise by the CoA. In cases of extreme urgency the applicant may apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, August 21, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_764/2024
No further written submissions after the oral hearing: Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, upon a reasoned request by a party submitted before the closure of the written procedure, allow the exchange of further written submissions. After this point, there is no basis for submitting additional written submissions, particularly not without prior approval…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 21, 2025, order on simultaneous interpretation, UPC_CoA_317/2025
Request for simultaneous interpretation pursuant to Rule 109.2 RoP must be justified: In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a request for a court-arranged simultaneous interpretation…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 25, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_758/2015 and UPC_CoA_759/2025
Application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP): Although R.223.5 RoP provides that there shall be no suspensive effect for an order pursuant to (amongst other) R.220.2 RoP, the Court of Appeal considers that this does not preclude that an application for suspensive effect is lodged – and if justified, granted – for such orders based…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 13, 2025, order concerning an application for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_446/2025, UPC_CoA_520/2025
Mere marketing authorisation for generics does not constitute imminent infringement (Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 206.2(c) RoP): The grant or application for a marketing authorisation alone is insufficient to establish imminent infringement. Additional steps are required for the threshold to be met, and the Court of Appeal clarified that this threshold can be crossed when a…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 9, 2025, order, UPC_CoA_430/2025
Case management orders, such as orders concerning security for costs, require panel review before appeal: R. 333.1 RoP mandates that case maagement orders issued by the judge-rapporteur (e.g. security for costs orders) must be reviewed by the panel of the CFI before an appeal to the CoA is admissible: Judge-rapporteur’s decision to grant leave to…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 9, 2025, order concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_431/2025
Failure to lodge Statement of response within the time limit of R. 235.2 RoP: Under R. 9.2 RoP the Court may disregard any step, fact, evidence or argument which a party has not taken or submitted in accordance with a time limit. The CoA will, however, have to examine whether the grounds of appeal are…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 22, 2025, decision on withdrawal of cost assessment application, UPC_CoA_845/2024
Jurisdiction for Cost Assessment: The Court of Appeal clarified that the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over cost assessment applications. The applicant had mistakenly filed the application with the Court of Appeal instead of the competent Local Division. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant for cost assessment to withdraw their application without…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 23, 2025, order on withdrawal of appeal, UPC_CoA_526/2025
Withdrawal of Appeal and Partial Reimbursement of Fees: The Court allowed the appellant to withdraw their appeal after an out-of-court settlement, as the respondent consented and had no further legitimate interest in the proceedings (R. 265 RoP). The appellant received a 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees, as the withdrawal occurred before the written proceedings…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 15, 2025, review of orders to preserve evidence, UPC_CoA_327/2025, UPC_CoA_002/2025
A request for preserving evidence does not require that this measure is sought without unreasonable delay. : It is necessary to distinguish between the assessment of urgency in the context of an application for preserving evidence (R. 194.2(a) RoP) and the assessment of urgency in the context of an application for provisional measures (R. 209.2(b)…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, Order of July 12, 2025, R 220.2 RoP Appeal on security for costs
Security for Costs: The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance’s order requiring the appellant to provide €300,000 as security for the respondent’s costs (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP).The Court emphasized the legitimate concern about the appellant’s ability to pay costs.The amount was deemed consistent with the value of the case.The Court…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 12, 2025, Decision concerning application for a decision by default (R. 355 RoP)
R 355.2 RoP limited to a decision by default against the Defendant: R. 355.2 RoP only applies when a decision by default is sought “against the defendant of the claim “. It does not apply when a decision by default is requested by the defendant against the claimant because the claimant failed to take a…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 10, 2025, procedural order concerning an application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_581/2025
Application for suspensive effect can only be granted if the circumstances of the case justify an exceptionto the principle that the appeal has no suspensive effect: Exceptional circumstances may justify a request for suspensive effect. Examination whether, on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 3, 2025, order re. members of confidentiality club, UPC_CoA_221/2025 et al
The number of US attorneys authorized to access confidential information shall not be greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of both Appellant and Respondents to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.: According to R. 262A.6 RoP, the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 3, 2025, order re. appeal against cost decision, UPC_CoA_153/2025
The cost decision after the withdrawal of an action (or a request for provisional measures) is made in accordance with the general regulations in Rules 150 et seqq. RoP.: According to Rule 265.2(c) RoP, the Court shall “issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5” in case a withdrawal is permitted. This…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 26, 2025, order concerning security of costs and disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose
When an applicant withdraws its request for provisional measures on appeal, the action becomes devoid of purpose. The Court may then dispose of the action under R. 360 of RoP.: The extent of the legal review in relation to costs (Art. 69 (1) UPCA) where the action is disposed of according to R. 360 RoP…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.