Luxembourg has been recognised across the world as offshore vehicles that can be successfully used in a variety of International Business, carry out commercial and industrial activities. Luxembourg is a member of the European Union and member of the Eurozone.

Regulatory uptick from the EU and Luxembourg keeps market players busy implementing novel rules and preempting potential hurdles and litigations.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect when filing an application for rehearing under Article 81(2) UPCA. The decision clarifies that suspensive effect is not automatic and requires independent substantiation beyond the grounds for rehearing itself, with applicants needing to demonstrate concrete, irreparable prejudice to justify departure from the default rule of continued enforceability.

A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.

On 1 June 2023, the European Parliament has agreed on its position on the Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (the CSDDD).

The Court of Appeal in Luxembourg addresses critical procedural questions regarding the suspension of first-instance proceedings during appeals of preliminary objection rejections under the Unified Patent Court Agreement. The decision examines whether exceptional circumstances warrant staying proceedings and clarifies the court's authority to conditionally add interveners as parties to ensure counterclaim admissibility.

Rules of civil procedure are deemed to be at the service of the parties to a dispute, as the form is meant to be an instrument of the realization of justice.

After the first instance infringement decision was appealed, the decision on withdrawal is within the competence of the CoA. According to R. 265.1 RoP, the decision of the first instance is not final.

This may be done separately, and is advisable if an order is required urgently. It cannot however be inferred from R.223 RoP that the lodging in a separate workflow is a requirement...

The UPC Court of Appeal Luxembourg addresses critical questions about patent amendment admissibility, claim construction methodology, and jurisdictional boundaries in cross-border infringement cases. This decision clarifies the standard of review for patent amendments under Rule 30.1 RoP and establishes important precedent on burden of proof requirements when alleging infringement in non-UPCA member states like Poland.

Failing to contest jurisdiction in first instance forecloses the objection on appeal (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast, R. 19.7 RoP).

Arendt Case Review is a newsletter designed by the Arendt Litigation Group to inform you about recent decisions of the Luxembourg and/or European courts.

On 28 March 2023, a new draft law was released in order to simplify and modernise the rules governing the direct tax procedure in Luxembourg.

Today, the Luxembourg Parliament voted a new law on arbitration (the "Arbitration Law"), aiming to modernise the current arbitration legislation deemed to be "outdated".

As of 1 October 2024, following a recent amendment to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, preliminary reference procedures in specific areas are transferred from the Court...

Following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3) on 24 December 2024, which has amended Regulation (EU)...

As of 1 July 2025, the Hague Convention of 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "2019 Hague Convention") entered into force for the UK.

Luxembourg's law of 5 August 2005 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended (Collateral Law 2005), continues to offer strong safe-harbor protections for financial collateral arrangements and is now confirmed to shield from insolvency proceedings globally.

Commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) requires relations between defendants regarding commercial activities for the alleged infringing product or range.

An appeal against a decision of the judge rapporteur can be admissible if it is the subject of the appeal whether the judge rapporteur was entitled to issue the decision under appeal.