UPC CoA 302/2025

At the UPC: Rematec GmbH & Co KG (11 cases)·Europe Forestry B.V. (14 cases)

• 2026-07-03
  Application RoP 333Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal dismissed Rematec's application under R. 333 RoP for panel review of the rapporteur's order of 30 March 2026. The Court confirmed that the cost-assessment application under R. 151 RoP must be filed with the Local Division Mannheim (the court of first instance), not with the Court of Appeal, and that no extraordinary circumstances existed to justify otherwise. The Court also rejected Rematec's argument that R. 151 RoP is incompatible with the UPCA or EU law.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • jurisdiction for cost-assessment applications under R. 151 RoP
  • panel review of rapporteur order (R. 333 RoP)
  • compatibility of R. 151 RoP with UPCA and EU law
  • referral of preliminary ruling question to CJEU
• 2026-03-30
  Application For CostsPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal dismissed Rematec's application to have its costs-assessment request referred to the Court of First Instance with the filing date of the Court of Appeal treated as the CFI filing date. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction over costs-assessment proceedings, which must always be initiated before the CFI under R. 150 ff. RoP, even when they concern appellate costs. No exceptional circumstances justifying a referral were found.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over costs-assessment applications (R. 150 ff. RoP)
  • Referral of costs-assessment application from the Court of Appeal to the Court of First Instance
  • Filing date of costs-assessment application when initially filed at the wrong court
  • Absence of exceptional circumstances justifying a referral order
• 2026-02-17
  Appeal RoP220.1Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (German-language version)

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Counterclaim for revocation – sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 138(1)(b) EPC)
  • Court of Appeal's obligation to give final decision (Art. 75 UPCA)
  • Indirect infringement
  • Publication of decision (Art. 80 UPCA)
  • Referral back to CFI in exceptional circumstances only