Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court on 16 April 2026 (case number PR-UPC-COA-0000054/2026) concerning an extension of a time period under Rules 9.3(a) and 224.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure (RoP).
The appellants and defendants before the Court of First Instance were Belkin International Inc. (United States), Belkin B.V. (Netherlands), and Belkin Limited (United Kingdom), jointly referred to as 'Belkin'. The respondent and claimant before the Court of First Instance was Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Netherlands), referred to as 'Philips'. The patent at issue was EP 2 867 997.
The underlying facts were as follows. Philips filed an infringement action against Belkin based on EP 2 867 997. On 11 February 2026, the Munich Local Division held an oral hearing and issued a panel decision without reasons. On 13 April 2026, Belkin appealed the decision.
Belkin requested that the Court of Appeal extend the deadline for the request under R. 225(e) RoP until the deadline for lodging the Grounds of appeal, or alternatively, that the Court of Appeal send a formal request to correct deficiencies pursuant to R. 229.2 RoP. Belkin submitted that, without knowing the grounds of the first-instance decision, it was not able to formulate the order or remedy sought as required by R. 225(e) RoP.
The Court of Appeal denied both requests. It noted that R. 9.4 RoP provides that the Court shall not extend the time period for the Statement of appeal, but left open whether deficiencies in a notice of appeal lodged within the deadline may be remedied only by means of a formal request pursuant to R. 229.2 RoP after the time period has passed. The Court found this question did not need to be decided because the time limit for lodging an appeal had not yet started in the present case.
The Court reasoned that, pursuant to R. 224.1(a) RoP, a Statement of appeal shall be lodged within two months of service of a decision referred to in R. 220.1(a) and (b) RoP. Under Art. 77(1) UPCA, decisions and orders of the Court shall be reasoned. The grounds of the decision are indispensable in order to formulate the order or remedy sought under R. 225(e) RoP. The Court therefore held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal begins to run only when the Court of First Instance issues a decision including the reasons, citing its earlier decision of 12 July 2024 in UPC_CoA_328/2024 (Ballino v Kinexon).
Consequently, the Court found there was no reason to extend a deadline that had not yet begun, and the same applied where the appellant requested an extension only with respect to certain requirements for the appeal. The Court also held it was not necessary to give Belkin the opportunity to address the deficiency arising from the absence of the requirements set out in R. 225(e) RoP by sending a formal request pursuant to R. 229.2 RoP.
The final order denied Belkin's requests. The Court instructed that, once Belkin intends to lodge a supplementary Statement of appeal, it shall notify the Registry so that a notice to remedy deficiencies can be issued in the CMS under case number PR-UPC-COA-0000054/2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited vs Koninklijke Philips N.V. 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.