UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 35/2026

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

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Respondents
Reps: Thomas Cuche (Duclos, Thorne, Mollet-Viéville & Associés, Paris, France)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Computing & AI
Language
French
First decided
May 8, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-08
    DismissedAppeal decisionRequest 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.

    Legal issues: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
    DismissedAppeal decisionRequest 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.

    Legal issues: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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-08Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-08Not public
Final Order2026-05-08Public
Receipt2026-03-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-18Not public
Receipt2026-03-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-04Not public
Statement of Response2026-03-04Not public
Statement of Response2026-03-04Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-25Not public
Order2026-02-25Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-02-25Not public
Receipt2026-02-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-24Not public
Fee2026-02-24Not public
Proof of payment2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-24Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-02-24Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012; Art. 75(2) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 334(h) RoP; R. 361 RoP