UPC CoA 894/2025

Vor dem UPC: Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. (5 Verfahren)·bellissa HAAS GmbH (8 Verfahren)

• 2026-08-21
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal rejected as inadmissible Windhager's appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's decision (UPC_CFI_338/2024 and counterclaim CC_65106/2024 / UPC_CFI_778/2024), which had substantially upheld bellissa's infringement claim and dismissed Windhager's revocation counterclaim on EP 2 223 589. The notice of appeal filed within the two-month deadline was not electronically signed as required by Rule 4.1 RoP, and a validly signed version was only filed after the Rule 224.1(a) RoP exclusion period had expired; CMS two-factor authentication does not substitute for the signature requirement. Windhager's belated request for re-establishment of rights and for a further opportunity to submit written arguments were also rejected, with costs of the appeal awarded against Windhager.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)

  • signature requirement for pleadings (Rule 4.1 RoP)
  • admissibility and time limit for notice of appeal (Art. 73(1) UPCA, Rule 224.1(a) RoP as an exclusion period)
  • two-factor CMS authentication does not substitute for a signature
  • re-establishment of rights (Rule 320 RoP) time-barred
• 2025-12-02
  Application RoP 223Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: Order of the Court of Appeal single judge on Windhager Handelsgesellschaft's application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division judgment largely upholding bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement action for EP 2 223 589 and rejecting Windhager's revocation counterclaim. Windhager alleged obvious errors in the first-instance assessment of direct infringement and the rejection of the revocation counterclaim. The order addressed the admissibility of the application (corrected after formality defects) and the substantive criteria for granting suspensive effect.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)

  • Application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP
  • Criteria for granting suspensive effect of appeal against infringement judgment
  • Direct patent infringement assessment
  • Revocation counterclaim