UPC CoA 97/2026

At the UPC: Dainese S.p.A. (17 cases)·MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L. (12 cases)

• 2026-10-16
  AppealPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal, in a single-judge order, dismissed the respondents' application to stay the appeal proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal's decision on the patent (T 1375/25). It held the application inadmissible for lacking the R. 4.1 RoP signature and, in the alternative, unfounded because a stay offered no decisive procedural advantage.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Stay of appeal proceedings pending EPO opposition appeal (Art. 33(10) UPCA, R. 295(a) RoP)
  • Signature requirement for written pleadings (R. 4.1 RoP)
  • Meaning of rapid decision expected from the EPO
• 2026-09-10
  AppealPublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal order (judge-rapporteur Sabotier, 10 Sep 2026) in Dainese S.p.A. v Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A. and Motocard Bike S.L. (EP 4 072 364; appeal against the Milan Local Division decision of 21 Apr 2026 in UPC_CFI_472/2024): the respondents' R. 361 RoP request to dismiss the appeal as manifestly inadmissible for late payment of the court fee is rejected, because the appeal was lodged in time and the fee was paid within the 14-day period of R. 229.2(b) RoP; both sides' requests for interim cost awards are rejected. The appeal continues.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • R. 361 RoP request to dismiss an appeal as manifestly inadmissible
  • Timeliness of appeal court-fee payment: R. 15.2, 228, 229.2(b) RoP
  • Interim award of costs only with a final decision or order (R. 150.2 RoP)