Court Of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order On Application For Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_135/2026

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

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error” The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).

European Union Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology, Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error”

The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).

Suspensive effect of an appeal is an exception

In general, an appeal to a first-instance decision has no suspensive effect pursuant to Art. 76(1) UPCA unless one party files a well-founded motion according to R. 223 RoP. The Court of Appeal may grant the request if the circumstances of the case justify an exception. In this regard, the Court must examine whether the appellant’s interest outweighs the Respondent’s interest of enforcement. This can be considered if the first-instance decision contains a manifest error (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_365/2025, Knaus Taubert v. Yellow; UPC_CoA_894/2025, Windhager v. Belissa).

First-instance manifest error does not automatically grant suspensive effect to entire decision

Contrary to Appellants’ opinion, the evident incorrectness of the contested first-instance order does not necessarily lead to to the granting of suspensive effect for the entire first-instance decision.

A decision can be separated into delimitable parts if the parts can be asserted or challenged separately from the remaining parts without affecting its meaning. For instance, a finding of direct infringement can be distinguished from a finding of indirect infringement. In light of this, the suspensive effect of an appeal is to be limited to the part which is affected by the manifest error.

Specific, unambiguous , irrevocable, and unconditional waiver of enforcement eliminates losing party’s need for legal protection

The waiver of enforcement of the prevailing party renders the application for suspensive effect of an appeal of the losing party unsuccessful.

2. Division

Court of Appeal Luxembourg

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_135/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Request for suspensive effect of an Appeal

5. Parties

Appellants: Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH (Defendants in First Instance)

Respondent: Cybex GmbH (Claimant in First Instance)

6. Patent(s)

EP 4 242 056

7. Jurisdictions

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 74(1) UPCA, R. 223 RoP

Please click here to view the full report.

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]