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
Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023) brought by Tandem Diabetes Care entities regarding European patent EP 2 196 231, to extend the deadline for filing its defence to revocation. Roche argued that a pending preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction would not be decided before the current deadline expired, making it unreasonable to finalize submissions that might become unnecessary. The Court, presided by Judge Paolo Catallozzi, considered the request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which grants discretionary powers to extend time periods upon reasoned request.
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o.vsTopcon Corporation
This case concerns a request for discretionary review of a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Respondent (Topcon) missed the deadline to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, prompting the Applicant (Optopol) to seek a default decision. The Local Division dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended the time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review, finding the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect.
bioMérieux UK LimitedvsLabrador Diagnostics LLC
This Procedural Order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, on 18 July 2025, managing two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed the management of bioMérieux's extensive invalidity attacks (approximately 50 attacks based on 16 prior art citations) and directed bioMérieux to narrow its arguments, preferably to three inventive step attacks and specific added matter features. The court also set deadlines for submissions and preliminary cost estimates, and outlined the structure of the upcoming oral hearing.
beMatrix NVvsYaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma FrancevsViatris Santé
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2025-11-21) under reference UPC-000226, Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France appeared in dispute with Viatris Santé concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.