Court Of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-94/2026

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.

Explore Firm Details

The Court of Appeal examines whether an application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn when no final decision has been issued and the opposing party provides consent, addressing the procedural requirements under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure applied mutatis mutandis.

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Henri Kirner’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Intellectual Property topic(s)
in United States

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

An application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, applied mutatis mutandis, if no final decision has been issued and the opposing party consents, thereby demonstrating that the opposing party has no interest in a decision being made

The CFI found the patent-in-suit to be infringend and dismissed the Counterclaim for Revocation. The CoA permitted the withdrawal of the application for suspensive effect after the appellant had accidentally lodged an application for suspensive effect in the appeal proceedings relating to the Counterclaim for Revocation and the respondent did not object to the withdrawal, acknowledging the application was devoid of purpose.

No order on costs was to be made pursuant to R. 265.1(c) RoP since the withdrawal of the application for suspensive effect did not terminate the underlying proceedings.

Withdrawing an application before the written procedure closes entitles the party to a 50% court fee reimbursement under R. 370.9(b) RoP, applied mutatis mutandis

The CoA rejected the appellant’s request for a full refund, even for an application filed by accident, finding no legal basis for a full refund in the Rules of Procedure.
The CoA found no “unintended gap” in the Rules of Procedure for applications filed accidentally and noted that R. 370.9(e) RoP can only reduce, not increase, a reimbursement entitlement.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC-CoA-94/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal proceedings – Order on withdrawal of an application and reimbursement of court fees

5. Parties

Appellants (and Defendants before the Court of First Instance): Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS

Respondent (and Claimant before the Court of First Instance): Hologic, Inc.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 352 431

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 265.1 RoP, R. 370.9 RoP, R. 370.11 RoP

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.

[View Source]