UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Apr 1, 2025

UPC_CoA_288/2025

AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

courtName.other · 5

TargetLegal pointStrengthExcerpt
Art. 6 ECHRtribunal established by law – not ground for preliminary objectionDistinguishedInsofar as an alleged violation of Art. 47, para. 2, EU CFR and Art. 6 ECHR does not involve any of the grounds for objection listed in R. 19.1 RoP, a preliminary objection based on that assertion is not admissible.
Article 31conferral of powers on UPC compatible with Art. 19 TEU and Art. 267 TFEUBindingThe conferral of powers on the Unified Patent Court, according to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71a et seq. Brussels Ia and Art. 32 UPCA, does not encroach on the division of roles, as estab-lished by Art. 19 TEU and Art. 267 TFEU
Article 87(2)Administrative Committee empowered to designate Milan to replace London as Central Division sectionBindingThe Administrative Committee was empowered by analogy under Art. 87(2) UPCA to determine that Milan would replace London as a section of the Central Division with the competences set out in Annex II to the UPCA.
Article 7London Central Division section – no section established after UK withdrawalBackgroundSuch doubts cannot be derived from the fact that, contrary to Art. 7 UPCA, there is no section of the Central Division in London.
Article 87(2)Administrative Committee empowered to designate Milan as replacement Central Division sectionBindingDer Verwaltungsausschuss war nach Art. 87 Abs. 2 EPGÜ analog befugt, zu bestimmen, dass Mailand an die Stelle Londons als Abteilung der Zentralkammer mit den in Anhang II EPGÜ festgelegten Zuständigkeiten tritt.

Rules of Procedure · 4

TargetLegal pointStrengthExcerpt
19.1exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections including jurisdictionBindingR. 19.1 RoP contains an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections (see order of 3 September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, APL_21943/2024, Aylo v. Dish, para. 32). This includes the jurisdiction and competence of the court (R. 19.1...
228court fees payable per appeal proceedingsBindingThe fixed fee that is to be paid for the appeal proceedings and, where applicable, the value based fee for the appeal, according to R. 228 RoP, is to be paid for each appeal proceedings.
19.1exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objectionsBindingR. 19.1 VerfO enthält einen abschließenden Katalog der zulässigen Einspruchsgründe (vgl. Anordnung vom 3. September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, APL_21943/2024, Aylo gegen Dish, Rn. 32).
228court fees payable per appeal proceedingsBindingDie gemäß R. 228 VerfO für das Berufungsverfahren zu entrichtende Festgebühr und gegebenenfalls die streitwertabhängige Gebühr für die Verletzungsklage ist für jedes Berufungsverfahren zu entrichten.

Court of Justice EU · 3

TargetLegal pointStrengthExcerpt
Art. 47(2) EU Charterright to fair trial – not a ground for preliminary objection under R. 19.1 RoPDistinguishedInsofar as an alleged violation of Art. 47, para. 2, EU CFR and Art. 6 ECHR does not involve any of the grounds for objection listed in R. 19.1 RoP, a preliminary objection based on that assertion is not admissible.
C-487/19tribunal established by law – scope of principle and independence requirementBindingCJEU, judgment of 6 October 2021, W.Z., C-487/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:798 para. 129
C-487/19tribunal established by law – independence and impartialityBindingEuGH, Urteil vom 6. Oktober 2021, W.Z., C-487/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:798 Rn. 129

UPC Court of Appeal · 2

TargetLegal pointStrengthExcerpt
UPC_CoA_188/2024exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections under R. 19.1 RoPBindingR. 19.1 RoP contains an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections (see order of 3 September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, APL_21943/2024, Aylo v. Dish, para. 32).
UPC_CoA_188/2024exhaustive list of grounds for preliminary objectionsBindingR. 19.1 VerfO enthält einen abschließenden Katalog der zulässigen Einspruchsgründe (vgl. Anordnung vom 3. September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, APL_21943/2024, Aylo gegen Dish, Rn. 32).
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
Cited inDateLegal pointStrengthExcerpt
UPC_CFI_575/2025

Mannheim LD

Feb 12, 2026Art. 32 UPCA / Brussels I jurisdictionPersuasiveCoA 6 October 2025 (UPC_UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025 UPC_CoA_291/2025, Roku v Dolby and Sun)