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
Leap Tools Inc.vsWizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
Mala Technologies Ltd.vsNokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
DexCom, Inc.vsRespondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns the handling of confidential information in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz GmbH sought to classify certain redacted text passages and unredacted exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited number of persons. The claimants Heraeus partially contested the need for protection, arguing that some information had already been disclosed in national proceedings and requesting access for five named individuals. The court addressed the scope of confidentiality protection and the number of persons permitted to access the sensitive recipe/formulation information.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbHvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
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.