1. Key takeaways
The Court of Appeal reviews ex officio whether a statement of appeal is validly signed under R. 224, R. 4.1 RoP, irrespective of when a party raises the objection
Even a belated objection by the respondent regarding the signature of the appellant’s statement of appeal must be examined by the Court on its own motion, since compliance with the formal filing requirements is not left to party disposition. Therefore, the Court rejected arguments that an objection to a signature was untimely or lacked legal interest
Under R. 4.1 RoP, electronic pleadings must be signed, but do not require qualified or advanced electronic signatures under EU Regulation 910/2014
Secure CMS login authentication does not replace the requirement for document-level signatures under R. 4.1 RoP, R. 8.1 RoP, and Art. 48 UPCA
Decisions on changing the language of proceedings under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP are discretionary with limited appellate review, which is limited to errors in the exercise of that discretion
Regional domicile and SME protection weigh decisively against changing the language of proceedings under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323.3 RoP
No cost decision is rendered in interlocutory appeals that do not terminate the underlying main proceedings
2. Division
Court of Appeal (Luxembourg)
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_73/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal against an order refusing to change the language of proceedings (Art. 49(5) UPCA)
5. Parties
Appellants: Esko-Software BV, Esko-Graphics BV
Respondent: IN(k)Control BV
6. Patent
EP 3 841 735
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 4.1 RoP R. 8.1 RoP, R. 220.1(c) RoP, R. 224.1(b) RoP, R. 224.2(b) RoP, R. 286 RoP, R. 320 RoP, R. 323 RoP, R. 370.8 RoP, Art. 48 UPCA, Art. 49(5) UPCA
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS)
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]