UPC CoA 54/2026
—·EP2867997: WIRELESS INDUCTIVE POWER TRANSFER
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartBerufungKategorieHauptberufung
- Parteien
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Richter
- Rian Kalden · presiding
- Patricia Rombach · rapporteur
- Ingeborg Simonsson · legally qualified
- Technology
- Power Generation
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 16. Apr. 2026
- 2026-04-16Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal denied Belkin's requests to extend the deadline for lodging the Statement of appeal and to issue a formal notice to remedy deficiencies under R.229.2 RoP. The Court held that the two-month time period for lodging a Statement of appeal (R.224.1(a) RoP) had not yet begun to run because the Court of First Instance issued its decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and the period only starts when a reasoned decision is served. As no deadline had yet started, there was nothing to extend and no deficiency notice was required.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Commencement of the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal under R.224.1(a) RoP
- Whether a decision without reasons triggers the appeal time period
- Extension of appeal deadlines under R.9.3(a) RoP
- Requirement for reasoned decisions under Art.77(1) UPCA
- order%2016-4-26%20extension%2054-2026.pdf2026-04-16EN
The two-month period for lodging a Statement of appeal (R.224.1(a) RoP) only begins to run when the CFI issues a decision including reasons, since the grounds are indispensable to formulate the order or remedy sought under R.225(e) RoP
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.224.1(a) RoP; Art.77(1) UPCA; UPC_CoA_328/2024 (Ballino v Kinexon)
Request to extend the deadline for the R.225(e) requirement until the deadline for lodging the Grounds of appeal
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.9.4 RoPIn the alternative, request for a formal notice to remedy deficiencies pursuant to R.229.2 RoP
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.229.2 RoP
- 2026-07-28UPC CFI 2719/2026Munich LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen Shenzhen Baseus Technology Co., Ltd.
- 2025-09-25UPC CFI 915/2025Munich LDAnker Innovations Deutschland GmbH gegen Belkin GmbH
- 2025-08-29UPC APP 35742/2025Munich LDPowermat Technologies, Ltd. gegen Koninklijke Philips N.V.
- 2025-07-03UPC CFI 615/2025Munich LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen Belkin GmbH
- 2025-07-01UPC CFI 586/2025Munich LDBelkin International, Inc. gegen Koninklijke Philips N.V.
- 2025-06-16UPC CFI 1871/2025Munich LDAnker Innovations Deutschland GmbH gegen Koninklijke Philips N.V.
- 2025-06-16UPC CFI 524/2025Munich LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.
- 2025-03-03UPC CFI 171/2025Munich LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen Belkin International, Inc.
- 2025-01-20UPC CFI 30/2025Munich LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen Name not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Philipp CEPL
- 2025-01-20UPC CFI 32/2025Munich LDName not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Philipp CEPL gegen Koninklijke Philips N.V.
- 2026-05-04UPC CoA 63/2026Court of AppealAdvanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. gegen Koninklijke Philips N.V.
- 2026-05-04UPC CoA 64/2026Court of AppealAdvanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. gegen Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
- 2025-12-23UPC CFI 2244/2025The Hague LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd.
- 2025-12-23UPC CFI 2245/2025The Hague LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd.
- 2025-10-14UPC CFI 1079/2025The Hague LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.
- 2025-10-14UPC CFI 1080/2025The Hague LDKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.
- 2025-07-02UPC CFI 603/2025Court of AppealKoninklijke Philips N.V. gegen Belkin International, Inc.
- 2025-04-29UPC CFI 103/2025The Hague LDRespironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG gegen Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc.
- 2025-01-21UPC CFI 43/2025The Hague LDAdvanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. gegen Koninklijke Philips N.V.
- 2025-01-10UPC CoA 19/2025Court of AppealBelkin Limited gegen Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2026