Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 SEPTEMBER 2025

CoA UPC, August 15, 2025, Order On Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_737/2025

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

Suspensive effect of an appeal may be granted if the order against which the appeal is directed is evidently erroneous.

LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Antje Weise
Antje Weise
Jan Bösing
Jan Bösing
Author LinkedIn connections

1. Key takeaways

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 error in the appealed decision can only be considered if it is possible to determine an evident error without knowledge of the reasons for the decision. This can be the case if the operative part pronounces a legal consequence that does not result from either the UPCA or the RoP.

Deadline for filing grounds of appeal only begins upon service of a reasoned decision

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UPC CoA Confirms “gold Standard” For Added Matter In Sibio v Abbott

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court recently issued a decision examining whether omitting an elastomeric sealing member from a patent claim constitutes added matter, applying the EPO's "gold standard" test while emphasizing the importance of functional and structural relationships between features. The ruling provides crucial insight into how the UPC approaches intermediate generalizations and whether its methodology differs from the notoriously strict EPO practice on added subject-matter.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg