Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Dolby and Vectis's applications for a stay and suspensive effect of first-instance proceedings pending their appeal. The appeal concerned an order by the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in Dolby's infringement action against Acer and declared Acer's FRAND rate-setting counterclaim against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay, concluded the impugned order was not manifestly erroneous, and held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the lower court had not ruled on the admissibility of the identical counterclaim against Dolby.
Detailed Summary
This case arose from an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against multiple Acer entities before the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court, concerning European patent EP 3 079 153. The patent was part of the Vectis Opus Patent Pool administered by Vectis IP Ltd., which applied to intervene in support of Dolby. Acer subsequently lodged counterclaims for revocation against Dolby and for FRAND rate-setting against both Dolby and Vectis. By an order of 1 May 2026 (the JR order), the judge-rapporteur admitted Vectis's intervention and declared the FRAND counterclaim against Vectis admissible. Following a panel review requested by Dolby and Vectis, the Local Division issued the impugned order on 8 July 2026, denying the review but adding Vectis as a party on Dolby's side "in as far as necessary." Dolby and Vectis appealed and applied for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP, seeking a stay of the infringement proceedings, the revocation counterclaim, and the FRAND rate-setting counterclaim pending the appeal.
Dolby and Vectis argued that the counterclaim against Vectis fell outside Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, that Rule 315.4 RoP could not serve as a self-sufficient jurisdictional basis, that the impugned order was contradictory regarding Vectis's status as a party, and that the UPC lacked international jurisdiction over Vectis, which is domiciled in the United Kingdom. They further contended that the Vectis Opus Patent Pool included non-European patents, making a global FRAND rate incompatible with the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 2(g) UPCA. Acer opposed the stay, arguing that the main proceedings should continue unhindered by procedural appeals.
The Court of Appeal, composed of Presiding Judge Rian Kalden, Judge-Rapporteur Patricia Rombach, and Judge Ingeborg Simonsson, rejected the applications. It held that, as a general rule, main proceedings are not stayed pending appeals from orders rejecting preliminary objections, and that a stay requires exceptional circumstances. The Court found no such circumstances, noting that regardless of the appeal's outcome, the Court of First Instance would inevitably need to address Acer's FRAND defence and the negotiation record. The Court further held that a stay might be appropriate only if the impugned order were manifestly erroneous, which it was not. The Court reasoned that the Local Division had not ruled on international jurisdiction but only on the admissibility of the counterclaim, and that Dolby and Vectis had failed to lodge a timely preliminary objection under Rule 19.1 RoP. The Court also addressed the merits of the parties' arguments, finding that the impugned order was not contradictory and that the Local Division's findings did not constitute manifest errors.
Regarding Dolby's appeal specifically, the Court held it inadmissible under Rule 220.1 RoP because the JR order contained no ruling on the admissibility of the identical counterclaim against Dolby, meaning Dolby was not adversely affected by any appealable decision. The Court therefore rejected all of Dolby's and Vectis's requests to stay the first-instance proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Hamburg Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. vs CPYou B.V. and Acer entities 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.