ARTICLE
8 September 2025

CoA, August 20, 2025, Order On Leave Of Appeal, UPC_CoA_380/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The UPC must interpret its own substantive and procedural law in accordance with EU law and, in the rare cases where such interpretation is not possible...
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

UPCA and RoP are not subject to interpretation by the CJEU

The UPC must interpret its own substantive and procedural law in accordance with EU law and, in the rare cases where such interpretation is not possible, must of its own motion refrain from applying any provision or practice that conflicts with a provision of EU law with direct effect.

However, the UPC cannot request the CJEU to interpret the UPCA. As is clear from the case law of the CJEU, the UPCA is an international agreement concluded between Member States and thus is part of international law. EU law also stipulates that the UPC cannot request the CJEU to interpret the RoP. A request for a preliminary ruling must relate to the interpretation or validity of EU law, not to the interpretation of provisions of national law or to questions of fact raised in the main proceedings. The RoP are procedural rules which, in this respect, can be equated with national procedural law.

Strict one-month deadline for cost applications does not violate EU law principles

The successful party must apply for cost recovery within one month of service of the decision; missing this deadline extinguishes the right to apply for a cost decision (R. 151 RoP). Extensions are only possible with sufficient justification. Reinstatement may be available.

The one-month time limit does not violate EU law principles of effective remedies. It is a clear and proportionate procedural requirement, and reinstatement is possible. The deadline is clear, foreseeable, and does not disproportionately restrict access to justice (Art. 69 UPCA, Art. 47 Charter, Art. 6 ECHR).

2. Division

CoA Luxembourg

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_380/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal proceedings

5. Parties

Appellants/Applicants: expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH

Respondent/Defendant: Seoul Viosys Co, Ltd

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 223 320

7. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP; Art. 267 TFEU

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More