UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 35/2026

24. Feb. 2026·EP2949070: VERIFICATION PROCESS OF THE INTEGRITY OF NUMERICAL DATA BLOC

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Written Phase
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter: Thomas Cuche (Duclos, Thorne, Mollet-Viéville & Associés, Paris, France)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Computing & AI
Sprache
French
Erste Entscheidung
8. Mai 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-08
    AbgewiesenBerufungsentscheidungRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    The Court of Appeal (duty judge) dismissed the appellants' request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP. The underlying legal question regarding the UPC's lack of jurisdiction over alleged infringements in non-UPC member states had already been definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's order of 13 March 2026, rendering the appellants' request moot.

    Rechtsfragen:Admissibility of discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoPUPC jurisdiction over infringement in non-UPC member states (Art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012)Summary rejection of claims under R. 334(h) RoPMootness following a definitive appellate ruling on the underlying legal questionScope and consequences of a Court of Appeal order declining jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
  • 2026-05-08
    AbgewiesenBerufungsentscheidungRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants' request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP. The standing judge found the request unfounded because the underlying legal question had already been conclusively settled by the Court of Appeal in its order of 13 March 2026 in related proceedings, rendering the request moot.

    Rechtsfragen:Admissibility of request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoPWhether the request for discretionary review was moot following Court of Appeal orders in UPC_CoA_922/2025 to UPC_CoA_925/2025Jurisdiction of UPC over infringement claims in non-member states under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012Application of R. 334(h) RoP for summary dismissal of claims lacking factual or legal groundsWhether impugned order raised a fundamental question of law of general significance
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-05-08Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-03-18Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Response2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Response2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-02-25Öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-02-24Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The request for discretionary review is admissible because the first-instance division did not explicitly grant leave to appeal — its reference to R. 220.2 RoP was merely a standard informational formula, not an express authorisation

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP; UPC_CoA_586/2024; UPC_CoA_1/2024; UPC_CoA_328/2024; UPC_CoA_930/2025; UPC_CoA_1/2026

  • The underlying legal question regarding lack of UPC jurisdiction over infringement in non-UPC member states was definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's order of 13 March 2026 in UPC_CoA_922-925/2025, rendering the present request without object

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012; Art. 75(2) UPCA
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The questions raised are of general importance and have not yet been decided by the Court of Appeal, warranting discretionary review to ensure uniform application of R. 334(h) RoP

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP; R. 334(h) RoP

  • There is a persisting legitimate interest in the Court of Appeal ruling on summary dismissal of claims under R. 334(h) and R. 361 RoP because the claims for non-UPC territories were not formally rejected by the earlier Court of Appeal order

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 334(h) RoP; R. 361 RoP