Topics: 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, 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, May 12, 2025, order on appeal against order for security of costs, especially when the action has become devoid of purpose, UPC_CoA_328/2024
Admissibility of Appeals: An appeal against an order for security of costs, brought together with an appeal against an order on provisional measures remains admissible, even if the request has become devoid of purpose (here because the appellant has later made it clear that it no longer requests provisional measures). The appellant retains a legal…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 6, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_457/2024 and UPC_CoA_458/2024
The possibility that an injunction might be granted by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in infringement proceedings based on a patent that has been upheld in first instance revocation proceedings, but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeal proceedings.: The two Defendants in…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 4 June 2024, Order of the Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_79/2024
Art. 83(3) UPCA must be interpreted such that a valid opt out application requires that it is lodged by or on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of a European patent: According to R.5.1(b) RoP an opt-out must be made in relation to all national parts of an EP patent. In addition, …
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, May 13, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_1/2024
The CoA confirmed its standards for the claim construction as stated in the order of CoA of February 26, 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2023: The patent claim is not only the starting point but also a decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of the European Patent. The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely…
3 min Reading time→ -
Luxembourg Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, Order of Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_4/2024
Orders given pursuant to Rules 360, 361 and 362 RoP: Under Rule 363.2 of the Rules of Procedure, orders given pursuant to Rules 360, 361 and 362 of the Rules of Procedure are final decisions within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure. An order pursuant to Rule 360 of the Rules…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, 26 February 2024, order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_335/2023
Claim Construction: The patent claim – to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art – is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining theprotective scope of a European patent under Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, 25 January 2024, decision, UPC_CFI_559935/2023
Background: The plaintiff filed a claim for damages subsequent to a German patent infringement case in which the defendant had been found to infringe the German part of EP 1 740 740 B1. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court regarding the damages claim. This objection was allowed by the judge-rapporteur, as per…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, 24 January 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_230/2023
Review Procedure comes before Appeal Process: Case management decisions must first be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP before they can be appealed under Rule 220 RoP (cf. UPC Court of Appeal (n°486/2023, §6). Consequently, if the review under Rule 333 RoP of a confidentiality order is still pending, a request for leave…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.