UPC_CoA_935/2025

Decisions and documents (5)

• 2026-11-02procedural

  Respondent:

  Amycel, LLC

  1. An alternative method authorised under R. 275 RoP need not be a method prescribed by the internal law of the State of destination for the service of documents in domestic proceedings. Otherwise, the reference in R. 274.1(b) RoP to an alternative method authorised under R. 275 RoP would have no autonomous meaning. 2. Deemed service and actual service are distinct concepts. A determination under R. 275.3(b) RoP that the Statement of claim is deemed served on a particular date does not, by itself, establish actual service within the meaning of R. 277(b) RoP. Actual service may nevertheless be established independently on the basis of the factual circumstances underlying that determination. 3. Actual service does not require proof that the defendant personally opened or retained the documents. As follows from Article 22(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, delivery to the defendant’s residence may suffice. A subsequent refusal does not negate a factual delivery which has already occurred where it does not constitute a valid exercise of the addressee’s right under Article 12 of that Regulation to refuse the document on linguistic grounds. 4. In exercising its discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP, the Court must take account of all the circumstances of the case, including the reasons for the failure to comply with the period, the conduct of the party and its representative, and the promptness with which the Court and the opposing party were informed of the relevant circumstances. A party seeking an extension on account of an unforeseen circumstance should inform the Court without undue delay once that circumstance becomes apparent, where such communication remains reasonably possible. 5. R. 353 RoP permits the Court to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips in a decision or order. The circumstances contemplated by R. 353 RoP presuppose a discrepancy between the decision intended by the Court and its material expression. R. 353 RoP does not permit the Court, under the guise of rectification, to reconsider or alter a substantive legal assessment contained in the decision or to substitute a different legal conclusion for the one originally expressed. Reference no: 6. Once an application to set aside a decision by default complies with the requirements of R. 356.2 RoP, the Court does not retain a general discretion to refuse it on the ground that the default is considered insufficiently justified or excusable. The explanation required by R. 356.2 RoP does not operate as a plea for relief requiring the applicant to prove that the default occurred without fault or was otherwise excusable. It enables the Court to identify the cause and scope of the default and may inform the exercise of its discretionary powers in the subsequent conduct of the proceedings, including case-management orders, the allocation of costs and a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that a further decision by default shall be final. 7. The notice required by R. 356.3 RoP must be express and clear. It must specifically inform the party that, in the event of a further default, the resulting decision by default shall be final and that the remedy under R. 356 RoP will no longer be available. Mere notice that a decision by default will be issued does not satisfy that requirement. 8. Referral under R. 242.2(b) RoP may be justified where a procedural error prevented the inter partes written procedure from being completed before the Court of First Instance and deciding the action on appeal would require the Court of Appeal to conduct the remaining written procedure for the first time.

  Judge: Klaus Grabinski • Panel: Rainer Friedrich, Paolo Gerli, Emmanuel Gougé, Klaus Grabinski, Appeal Paolo Catallozzi🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-09-03procedural

  Respondent:

  Amycel, LLC

  dismissed

  Appeal. Document: order_rule 109 appl_CoA-935-2025_anonymized.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/184177

  • Panel: Rainer Friedrich, Paolo Gerli, Emmanuel Gougé, Paolo Catallozzi🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-07-02procedural

  Respondent:

  AMYCEL, LLC

  Generic application. Document: order__Security for costs_UPC-CoA-935-2025_Signed_anonym.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183677

  Judge: Klaus Grabinski • Panel: Rainer Friedrich, Paolo Gerli, Emmanuel Gougé, Klaus Grabinski, Appeal Paolo Catallozzi🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-03-24procedural

  Respondent:

  AMYCEL, LLC

  The principle that parties shall set out their full case as early as possible in the proceedings (RoP, Preamble, paragraph 7, last sentence) also applies to applications for suspensive effect. This means that an application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence and arguments on which the applicant wishes to rely. Any subsequent application for suspensive effect will be inadmissible, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the new application is based on submissions that could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.

  • Panel: Peter Blok, Appeal Emmanuel Gougé🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-01-16procedural

  Respondent:

  AMYCEL, LLC

  dismissed

  Application Rop 223. Document: ORDER_Request for Suspension_CoA_0935-2025_2026-01-16_Signed_anonym-1.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/160224

  Judge: Klaus Grabinski • Panel: Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally, Peter Blok, Klaus Grabinski, Appeal Emmanuel Gougé🔒 Unlock Official PDF