UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 54/2026

Apr 13, 2026·EP2867997 SEP · WIRELESS INDUCTIVE POWER TRANSFER

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications
Language
English
First decided
Apr 16, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked

At the UPC: Belkin Group (24 cases)·Philips Group (46 cases)

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

This dispute contains 11 other proceedings

UPC CFI 586/2025·UPC CFI 171/2025·UPC CFI 30/2025·UPC CFI 32/2025·UPC CoA 19/2025 and 6 more

7 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 2719/2026·UPC CFI 915/2025·UPC CFI 615/2025·UPC CFI 1871/2025·UPC CFI 524/2025 and 2 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-04-16
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal denied Belkin's requests to extend the deadline for lodging the Statement of appeal and to issue a formal notice to remedy deficiencies under R.229.2 RoP. The Court held that the two-month time period for lodging a Statement of appeal (R.224.1(a) RoP) had not yet begun to run because the Court of First Instance issued its decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and the period only starts when a reasoned decision is served. As no deadline had yet started, there was nothing to extend and no deficiency notice was required.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Commencement of the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal under R.224.1(a) RoP
    • Whether a decision without reasons triggers the appeal time period
    • Extension of appeal deadlines under R.9.3(a) RoP
    • Requirement for reasoned decisions under Art.77(1) UPCA
Documents
Show all 23 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-07-07Not public
Decision2026-07-07Not public
Decision2026-07-07Public
Receipt2026-06-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-29Not public
Document2026-06-29Not public
Receipt2026-06-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-29Not public
Document2026-06-29Not public
Communication2026-06-26Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The two-month period for lodging a Statement of appeal (R.224.1(a) RoP) only begins to run when the CFI issues a decision including reasons, since the grounds are indispensable to formulate the order or remedy sought under R.225(e) RoP

    RespondentLegal basis: R.224.1(a) RoP; Art.77(1) UPCA; UPC_CoA_328/2024 (Ballino v Kinexon)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Request to extend the deadline for the R.225(e) requirement until the deadline for lodging the Grounds of appeal

    RespondentLegal basis: R.9.4 RoP

  • In the alternative, request for a formal notice to remedy deficiencies pursuant to R.229.2 RoP

    RespondentLegal basis: R.229.2 RoP