UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 57/2026

Apr 20, 2026·EP2334762 · METHOD FOR PRODUCTION OF A CLEAN HOT GAS BASED ON SOLID FUELS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Basic materials chemistry · Environmental technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Thermal processes and apparatus
Language
English
First decided
Apr 24, 2026
Last decision
Jun 29, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • OBERNBERGER, IngwaldAdmissible2019-07-10
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Klaus GrabinskiLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLocked
Judge Emmanuel GougéLocked

At the UPC: Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH (2 cases)·Dall Energy ApS (2 cases)

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

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 513/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-06-29
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal partially allowed Polytechnik's appeal against the production of evidence order issued by the Copenhagen Local Division on 10 April 2026. The appellate court set aside the first operative paragraph and replaced it with a narrower order limited to construction drawings of the furnace at the Oberpullendorf site and relevant operation and maintenance manuals, finding that the original order exceeded the limits of proportionality under Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP; the remainder of the impugned order was upheld.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Production of evidence order under Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP
    • Proportionality and necessity of evidence production scope
    • Protection of confidential technical and commercial information
    • Balance between right of access to evidence and effective judicial protection under CJEU case law
  • 2026-04-24
    Application RoP 223Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of the Copenhagen Local Division's order dated 10 April 2026, which required Polytechnik to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals. The Court found that the appeal would not be rendered moot by enforcement, that the confidentiality measures in the impugned order were sufficient and correctly interpreted, and that no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect were established.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP
    • Order to produce evidence under Rule 190 RoP and Article 59 UPCA
    • Protection of confidential information and scope of confidentiality club under Rule 262A RoP
    • Conditions for granting suspensive effect — irreparable harm and manifest error
    • Interpretation of 'legal representatives' under Article 48 UPCA for confidentiality club membership
    • Risk of factual pre-judgment of infringement proceedings through early evidence disclosure
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-06-29Not public
Publication of order2026-06-29Not public
Decision2026-06-29Not public
Final Order2026-06-29Public
Deliberation opened2026-06-19Not public
Oral procedure closed2026-06-19Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-06-19Not public
Oral procedure opened2026-05-26Not public
Interim procedure closed2026-05-26Not public
Summons to oral hearing2026-05-25Not public
Summons2026-05-25Public
Receipt2026-05-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-18Not public
Submission Appellant2026-05-18Not public
Receipt2026-05-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-15Not public
Document Respondent2026-05-15Not public
Interim procedure opened2026-05-13Not public
Written procedure closed2026-05-13Not public
Order2026-05-13Not public
Order2026-05-13Public
Receipt2026-05-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-11Not public
Statement of Response2026-05-11Not public
Publication of order2026-04-24Not public
Order2026-04-24Not public
Order2026-04-24Public
Receipt2026-04-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-23Not public
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-04-23Not public
Receipt2026-04-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-21Not public
Document Respondent2026-04-21Not public
Publication2026-04-21Not public
Receipt2026-04-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-21Not public
Other document Appellant2026-04-21Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-04-21Not public
Receipt2026-04-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-20Not public
Fee2026-04-20Not public
Proof of payment2026-04-20Not public
Proof of payment2026-04-20Not public
Proof of payment2026-04-20Not public
Proof of payment2026-04-20Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-04-20Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • A successful appeal would result in the exclusion of the produced documents from the evidentiary record, so the appeal retains its purpose even if suspensive effect is denied; the consequences of enforcement can be effectively reversed.

    RespondentLegal basis: Article 74(1) UPCA; UPC_CoA_407/2023; UPC_CoA_177/2024; UPC_CoA_301/2024

  • The impugned order's confidentiality club is limited to legal representatives under Article 48 UPCA and their teams, and prohibits sharing with the client, so the protective measures are sufficient.

    RespondentLegal basis: Article 48 UPCA; Rule 262A.6 RoP

  • UPC procedure requires all facts and evidence to be adduced as early as possible; early disclosure does not constitute an impermissible pre-judgment of infringement.

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 171 RoP; Rule 222 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Disclosure of construction drawings and manuals would permanently expose core technical know-how and cause irreparable harm that a successful appeal could not remedy.

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 223 RoP; Article 74(1) UPCA

  • The confidentiality measures are insufficient because they allow patent attorneys involved in prosecution/opposition/nullity proceedings to access the files and 'optimize' patent claims.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 262A RoP

  • The confidentiality club improperly includes decision-makers such as the CEO and administrative directors of the claimant.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 262A RoP; Article 48 UPCA

  • Compelled disclosure would anticipate procedural stages reserved for remedies and accounting, undermining the defendant's right to have infringement determined before facing liability consequences.

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 223 RoP