UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 35/2026

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

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Claim dismissed)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Language
French
First decided
May 8, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Ulrike VoßLocked

At the UPC: ADOBE INC. (12 cases)·KEEEX SAS (12 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 11 other proceedings

UPC CoA 95/2026·UPC CoA 1/2026·UPC CoA 924/2025·UPC CoA 925/2025·UPC CoA 922/2025 and 6 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-05-08
    Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Admissibility of discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP
    • UPC jurisdiction over infringement in non-UPC member states (Art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012)
    • Summary rejection of claims under R. 334(h) RoP
    • Mootness following a definitive appellate ruling on the underlying legal question
    • Scope and consequences of a Court of Appeal order declining jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-05-08Not public
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
Communication2026-03-18Not public
Receipt2026-03-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-04Not public
Statement of Response2026-03-04Not public
Statement of Response2026-03-04Not public
Order2026-02-25Not public
Order2026-02-25Public
Publication2026-02-25Not 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