Short Summary
The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The Registrar had rejected the application because it was filed on 18 April 2025, outside the one-year transitional period from the entry into force of the UPC Agreement on 1 June 2023, as required by Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The applicant argued that Rule 12.1 only defines when a qualification is deemed appropriate and does not impose a filing deadline. The President upheld the Registrar's decision, confirming that the transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception.
Detailed Summary
The matter concerns an unnamed applicant who, on 18 April 2025, requested to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), asserting that he fulfilled the requirements of Article 48(2) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA). In support of his application, the applicant submitted a certificate dated 1 March 2024 issued by Politecnico di Milano, attesting that he had successfully completed the course entitled "Certificato di superamento dell'esame conclusivo del Corso di Proprietà Industriale – Brevetti." This course is one of the qualifications referenced in Rule 12.1(a) of the Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate and other appropriate qualifications (EPLC Rules).
On 2 June 2025, the Registrar of the UPC rejected the application (Order ORD_24810/2025), holding that it had not been filed within the one-year transitional period from the entry into force of the UPC Agreement on 1 June 2023, during which applications for registration as a representative could be filed under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules. The applicant filed a petition for review (APL_32076/2025, UPC_CoA_614/2025), advancing several arguments: that Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules specifies only when a qualification must be deemed appropriate and does not set a deadline for submission or registration; that neither Rule 13 nor Rule 14 EPLC Rules imposes a temporal restriction on the act of submission; that the Registrar's reasoning improperly limited eligibility to European Patent Attorneys possessing appropriate qualifications; that the legal effect of an appropriate qualification should not depend solely on the date of formal submission; and that denying registration based on a deadline not prescribed by the Rules would violate the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, and the underlying objective of the Rule.
& Analysis
On 15 July 2025, the Registrar held that the petition for review was admissible but unfounded and forwarded it to the President of the Court of Appeal pursuant to Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules (Order ORD_32888/2025). In his reasoning, the Registrar explained that the certificate obtained by the applicant shall be deemed an appropriate qualification only during the one-year transitional period from the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. The Registrar concluded that the clear intention of Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules is to provide a grace period during which such certificates serve as a valid basis for registration, and that certificates cannot serve as a basis for registration if the application is filed after the expiry of the transitional period. The President of the Court of Appeal, issuing the order on 24 July 2025, adopted this reasoning and confirmed the headnote principle that the transitional period provided under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception.
Final Order & Ruling
The President of the Court of Appeal upheld the Registrar's decision denying the applicant's registration on the list of UPC representatives. The petition for review was determined to be unfounded, and the applicant's application—filed on 18 April 2025, after the expiry of the one-year transitional period beginning on 1 June 2023—was definitively rejected. The ruling establishes that the transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules is not, as a rule, subject to extension or exception.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Applicant *** vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.