1 Key takeaways
An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the order against which the appeal is directed contitutes obvious errors, or if the enforcement of the appealed order or decision would make the appeal devoid of purpose. The fact that a (new) standalone revocation action is pending does generally not suffice for such an exception
The Court follows up on its case law regarding the requirements
for an application for suspensive effect (cf. CoA, 6 November 2023,
App_584588/2023, UPC_CoA_407/2023; 2 May 2024, APL_20002/2024,
UPC_CoA_177/2024; 19 August 2024, APL_ 39884/2024,
UPC_CoA_388/2024) and dismisses Defendant's application for
suspensive effect, because they had merely argued that the appealed
decision constitutes obvious errors by pointing to the written
reasoning of their appeal and to the fact that a new standalone
revocation action had been filed with the Central Division.
However, an exception to the principle that an appeal has no
suspensive effect requires the prove that the findings of facts or
legal
considerations in the appealed decision are obviously untenable
even in a summary assessment.
2 Division
Court of Appeal
3 UPC number
UPC_CoA_894/2025
4 Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect
5 Parties
APPLICANT (and Defendant in first instance proceedings):
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. (Thalgau, Austria)
RESPONDENT (and Claimant in first instance proceedings):
bellissa HAAS GmbH, (Bodnegg-Rotheiden, Germany)
6 Patent(s)
EP 2 223 589
7 Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 223 RoP, Art. 74(1) UPCA
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.
