UPC CoA 935/2025

At the UPC: Amycel LLC (6 cases)

• 2026-09-03
  AppealPublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal order of the judge-rapporteur (3 Sep 2026) in the appeal against The Hague LD's default decision of 21 Oct 2025 (Amycel v a natural-person defendant, EP 1 993 350): the appellant's request for English-Polish interpretation facilities at the 23 Sep 2026 oral hearing under Art. 51(2) UPCA and R. 109.2 RoP is dismissed (lodged late and, in any event, being a duly represented natural person is not by itself enough); engaging an interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP needs no authorisation, to be notified to the Registry by 9 Sep 2026.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Art. 51(2) UPCA / R. 109 RoP interpretation facilities at the oral hearing
  • R. 109.1 RoP one-month time limit (Barco v Yealink)
  • R. 109.4 RoP interpreter at a party's own expense needs no authorisation (Scandit v Hand Held Products)
• 2026-07-02
  Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal ordered the Appellant (defendant in first-instance infringement proceedings) to provide security for legal costs and other expenses in the amount of EUR 28,000, pursuant to Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Respondent (AMYCEL, LLC) had applied for EUR 56,000; the Court set the amount at approximately 50% of the applicable ceiling, having regard to the predominantly legal and procedural nature of the appeal and the principle of proportionality. Security must be provided within three weeks by deposit into the Court's designated account or by an unconditional irrevocable bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP
  • Conditions for ordering security – legitimate and real concern that a future costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable only with undue burden
  • Enforceability of a costs order against a party located outside the European Union (United States)
  • Whether proof of insolvency or prior failed enforcement attempts is required (held: not required)
  • Proportionality of security amount relative to applicable recoverable-costs ceiling
• 2026-03-24
  Application RoP 223Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a default judgment of The Hague Local Division. The Court held that an application for suspensive effect must set out all reasons, facts, evidence and arguments at once; a second application is inadmissible unless new submissions could not reasonably have been made earlier.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Admissibility of suspensive effect application (R. 223 RoP)
  • Default judgment
  • Front-loading principle
  • Service of statement of claim
• 2026-01-16
  Application RoP 223Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal dismissed the anonymised applicant's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a default decision from The Hague Local Division (which had granted provisional measures and subsequently a default judgment in favour of Amycel). The CoA held that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous, or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Suspensive effect of appeal (Art.74(1) UPCA, R.223 RoP)
  • Exceptional circumstances test for suspensive effect
  • Manifest error standard for suspensive effect
  • Default decision at first instance