UPC CoA 40/2026

At the UPC: Emboline, Inc. (6 cases)·AorticLab srl (6 cases)

• 2026-09-28
  AppealPublic

  Summary: In Emboline's appeal against the Munich LD decision of 13 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_628/2024, EP 2 129 425), the Court of Appeal dismissed Emboline's request to disregard AorticLab's witness statement (Exhibit HRM 26) as late-filed or alternatively to file a further pleading, leaving comments to the oral hearing, and announced closure of the written procedure without an interim conference.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Late-filing objection to new evidence in the Statement of response on appeal (R. 9.2, 36, 336 RoP)
  • No further written pleadings; comments deferred to the oral hearing
• 2026-08-17
  AppealPublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal rejected AorticLab's requested review of the clarification order, re-established its right to lodge a statement of appeal and grounds of appeal against the first-instance decision, declared the appeal filed on 24 July 2026 admissible, and shortened the period for the statement of response to two months. The appeal itself is not decided by this order.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • review of an order (R. 333 RoP)
  • re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP)
  • conditional counterclaim for revocation
  • intra- vs inter-procedural conditions
  • cross-appeal
• 2026-07-16
  AppealPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal issued an order clarifying the procedural rules governing conditional counterclaims for revocation. The order addresses how a counterclaimant may appeal a first-instance decision not to decide on a conditional counterclaim when the infringement claimant appeals a finding of non-infringement, and notes that AorticLab may request re-establishment of rights since the appeal time period has lapsed.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Permissibility of conditional counterclaim for revocation
  • Appellate standing of counterclaimant upon finding of non-infringement
  • Conditional lodging of appeal under R. 220.1(a) RoP
  • Whether counterclaim for revocation remains conditional on appeal
  • Court of Appeal jurisdiction to decide on counterclaim rather than referring back to CFI under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.2(b) RoP