Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellants' (Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH) application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Local Division Hamburg's order of August 10, 2026, concerning alleged infringement of EP 4 242 056 (a child seat system patent). While the Court identified a manifest error in the first instance order regarding an unrequested 'insbesondere ohne' (in particular without) addition to the indirect infringement ruling, it found that the suspensive effect could be limited to the distinct part affected by the error. Since Cybex had validly waived enforcement of that specific erroneous part, the appellants' need for legal protection was eliminated.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect of an appeal under Art. 74(1) UPCA in conjunction with R. 223 RoP, filed by Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH (the appellants) against an order of the Local Division Hamburg dated August 10, 2026 (UPC_CFI 1326/2026), which had found that it was more likely than not that the appellants infringed European Patent EP 4 242 056, directed to a child seat system comprising at least a first seat element, a second seat element, and a base. The respondent, Cybex GmbH, had alleged that the appellants' products—including the 'base curve' base, the 'todl next' child seat, the 'cari next' baby carrier, and the 'pipa lite', 'pipa next', 'arra flex', and 'arra next' child seats—infringed the patent both directly and indirectly. The Local Division had granted Cybex's requests for injunction, information, and coercive measures regarding both direct and indirect infringement, and had additionally included an 'insbesondere ohne' (in particular without) addition to the indirect infringement ruling, specifying particular warning obligations regarding the 'base curve' base system and the various seat elements.
The appellants challenged the first instance order, arguing primarily that the 'insbesondere ohne' addition violated the disposition principle (Dispositionsmaxime) because Cybex had not requested this specific wording in its application I.2. They sought suspensive effect for the entire contested order (main request), or alternatively for the entire indirect infringement ruling (subsidiary request), or most subsidiarily for the 'insbesondere ohne' addition alone. They argued that enforcement of the manifestly erroneous part would cause severe and likely irreparable damage through market and customer confusion.
The Court of Appeal, sitting as Panel 3 with Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß, Judge Bart van den Broek, and Judge Nathalie Sabotier, first addressed the legal framework. It confirmed that a manifest error under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223 RoP can give rise to suspensive effect, but clarified that such effect need not extend to the entire contested decision—it may be limited to the distinct part affected by the manifest error. A part is 'distinct' if it can be assessed or impugned separately from other parts without affecting the meaning of either.
Applying this framework, the Court found that the direct infringement ruling was a distinct part from the indirect infringement ruling. Within the indirect infringement ruling, the warning obligation as granted per Cybex's application I.2 was a distinct part from the additional 'insbesondere ohne' addition. The manifest error (violation of the disposition principle) affected only the 'insbesondere ohne' addition, not the direct infringement ruling or the main indirect infringement ruling. The appellants themselves did not assert any manifest errors regarding the direct infringement ruling or the main indirect infringement ruling. Consequently, the main and subsidiary requests for suspensive effect covering broader portions of the order were rejected.
Turning to the most subsidiary request concerning the 'insbesondere ohne' addition, the Court found that Cybex had validly waived enforcement of this specific part by its filing of August 18, 2026. The waiver was specific (clearly indicating the title and scope), unambiguous, irrevocable, and unconditional, thereby satisfying the requirements for a valid waiver of enforcement. The Court found no indication that the waiver was not sincere, noting that the appellants had not previously challenged an earlier out-of-court waiver. Because Cybex was bound by its waiver and could not enforce the 'insbesondere ohne' addition, the appellants no longer had a need for legal protection—their objective was already fully achieved without court intervention. The appellants' argument that public rehabilitation was needed due to publication of the order was rejected as unsubstantiated, particularly since the present order would also be published.
The Court therefore rejected the application for suspensive effect in its entirety. No cost order was made, as this was not a final order or decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Court of Appeal. Understanding the court's reasoning in Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH vs Cybex GmbH 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.