Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the time limit for lodging an appeal against an order from the Court of First Instance (CFI). The appellant, AIM Sport Development AG, argued that the CFI's own 'Information about appeal' stated a two-month deadline, even though the strict rule (R.224.1(b) RoP) mandated only 15 days for certain orders. Applying the principle of legitimate expectations, the Court of Appeal sided with AIM, finding the appeal admissible. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and how courts must interpret rules when CFI guidance creates a reasonable expectation.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal ruled that due to an ambiguity in Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 220.1(c) and 224.1(b) RoP, combined with misleading information provided by the Court of First Instance, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations requires AIM to be allowed to rely on the two-month appeal period stated in the CFI decision for provisional measures proceedings. This made the appeal admissible.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Luxembourg (LU), this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Abbott Logistics B.V.vsDexCom, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court rejected Abbott's request to amend its claims based on the release of a new version of its LibreLinkUp application. Abbott argued that the timing was necessitated by commercially sensitive information regarding the product launch. However, the Court prioritized the principles of efficiency and celerity inherent in UPC proceedings, finding that allowing such an amendment so close to the oral hearing would unreasonably hinder DexCom's ability to prepare a defense.
Aesculap AGvsShanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its surgical instrument patent (EP 2 892 442 B1). While the core request for injunctions was dismissed, the court issued significant procedural rulings. These rulings clarify how courts handle parties who fail to attend oral hearings and set a high bar for what constitutes a 'substantially contested' allegation of infringement in UPC proceedings.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbHvsLexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
In a procedural case concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted the withdrawal request initiated by BTL Medizintechnik GmbH against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.. The court confirmed that since both parties had reached a settlement, the proceedings could be formally closed without further judicial intervention on merits or costs.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd.vsSiltronic AG
In this procedural case, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a dispute over the disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation measures. The respondent (Siltronic AG) sought to keep certain sensitive commercial data—such as pricing and supplier bank details—confidential. The court ruled that while trade secret protection is paramount, the information relevant to potential infringement claims must be made available, leading to a partial redaction of the expert report before its disclosure to the claimant.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsAndreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC provisional measures case involving parties across different jurisdictions, specifically China. The Court found that traditional methods of serving Defendant 2 were ineffective and unduly delayed. By invoking the principle of effective judicial protection, the Düsseldorf Local Division declared that publishing the preliminary injunction on the UPC website constituted valid good service. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border litigation where formal service is impractical.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.