UPC CoA 56/2026
Apr 16, 2026·EP2845534: OPHTHALMIC APPARATUS
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionAppealCategoryMain Appeal
- Parties
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- Technology
- Pharmaceutical & Medical
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Apr 28, 2026
- 2026-04-28Procedural onlyAppeal decisionRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's request for a discretionary review of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 1 April 2026. The Court found that the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect and did not raise any unaddressed fundamental questions of law. The Local Division had properly exercised its discretion by retroactively extending the Respondent's deadline to file its Reply under R. 9.3(a) RoP.
Legal issues:Whether a request for a discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP is admissible and well-foundedWhether the Local Division erred in reclassifying an application under R. 320 RoP as one under R. 9.3(a) RoPWhether the reasoning in a R. 320 RoP application can serve as reasoning for a R. 9.3(a) RoP applicationWhether a human error by a representative's assistant constitutes sufficient grounds for retroactive extension of a time period under R. 9.3(a) RoPWhether alleged bad faith by a party affects the exercise of discretion to retroactively extend a procedural time limitWhether missing the deadline to file a defence against a counterclaim for revocation can result in a default decision
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| action.phaseChange.caseClose | 2026-04-28 | Not public |
| action.issueDecision.decision | 2026-04-28 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2026-04-28 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-04-20 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-04-20 | Not public |
| Document | 2026-04-20 | Not public |
| Document | 2026-04-20 | Not public |
| action.publishOrderDecision.case | 2026-04-20 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
| Fee | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
| Exhibit Appellant | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
| Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
The Local Division's interpretation of the R. 320 RoP application as implicitly including a request for retroactive extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP was reasonable, in particular given the alternative request to allow the Reply into proceedings
RespondentLegal basis: R. 9.3(a) RoP; R. 320 RoPThe deadline was missed due to an excusable human error by the assistant of Respondent's representatives, who incorrectly noted the prescribed time period in the deadline-tracking system, despite a system of checks being in place
RespondentLegal basis: R. 9.3(a) RoPThe timing of the (implicit) request for retroactive extension was excusable given that the CoA order in Angelalign v. Angel Technology (UPC_CoA_37/2026) had not yet been issued when the application was filed
RespondentLegal basis: R. 9.3(a) RoP; R. 320 RoPThe retroactive extension did not cause any delay in the proceedings, as the Applicant could still respond within RoP time limits and the oral hearing scheduled for 15 December 2026 was unaffected
RespondentLegal basis: R. 9.3(a) RoP
The Local Division erred by reclassifying the R. 320 RoP application as a R. 9.3(a) RoP application
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 320 RoP; R. 9.3(a) RoPThe reasoning provided in the R. 320 RoP application was insufficient to justify a retroactive extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 9.3(a) RoPThe Local Division erroneously confined its assessment to a single human error and failed to account for a seven-fold failure by Respondent's representatives and Respondent's alleged bad faith
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 9.3(a) RoPThe impugned order raises fundamental legal questions that have not yet been addressed by the Court of Appeal, requiring review
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 220.3 RoP