ARTICLE
8 May 2026

Court Of Appeal, Standing Judge, April 28, 2026, Order On Request For Discretionary Review, UPC_CoA_56/2026

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 Court of Appeal examines a request for discretionary review in a patent dispute between Optopol Technology and Topcon Corporation concerning EP 2 845 534. The case involves interpretation of procedural rules governing standing and review processes under the Unified Patent Court framework.
Luxembourg Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Privacy and Transport topic(s)
  • in European Union

1. Key takeaways

Request for retroactive term extension should be made as soon as possible.

In the case at issue, the Respondent filed its implicit request for retroactive term extension as an alternative request to the request for the re-establishment of rights within the time period for the latter. The Court of Appeal held that it was not unreasonable for the LD to consider it excusable that in this case, wherein the order of the Court of Appeal in Angelalign v. Angel Technology (UPC_CoA_37/2026) was not yet issued, the request was made in the application and within the time period set out for a request for the re-establishment of rights. However, the Court of Appeal expressly agreed that a request persuant to R. 9.3 RoP for retroactive term extension, should generally be made as soon as possible.

Missed deadline by human error may warrant retroactive term extension.

Based on the reasoning and on the evidence submitted to the LD, the LD concluded that a system of checks had been put into place within the representatives’ law firm and that despite this system, the deadline at issue was missed by a human error, in particular by the assistant of Respondent’s representatives incorrectly noting the prescribed time period in the system on which the Respondent’s representatives relied. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the LD’s determination that this was an excusable human error is understandable and reasonable in view of the facts and evidence of the case.

2. Division

Court of Appeal, standing judge

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_56/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Request for a discretionary review

5. Parties

Optopol Technology Sp.zoo. (Applicant and Defendant);

Topcon Corporation (Respondent and Claimant)

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 845 534

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 220.3, Rule 320, Rule 9.2, Rule 9.3 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]

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