2026-04-24 - CoA - Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik v. Dall Energy - UPC-COA-0000057/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000057/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v. Dall Energy ApS
Kernaussage: CoA Panel 1b (Grabinski presiding/President, Catallozzi JR) rejected Polytechnik's R.
2026-04-24 - CoA - Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik
v.
Dall Energy - UPC-COA-0000057/2026
notable
CoA Panel 1b (Grabinski presiding/President, Catallozzi JR) rejected Polytechnik's R. 223 RoP application to suspend the effect of an Art. 59 UPCA / R. 190 RoP production order issued by the LD Copenhagen JR on 10 April 2026 in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court restated the two-category framework for suspensive effect: (i) where the consequences of enforcement of the impugned order cannot be effectively reversed if the order is later set aside, so the appeal would be devoid of purpose or largely ineffective (Ocado v Autostore, Progress Maschinen v AWM, ICPillar v ARM); and (ii) where the impugned order is manifestly wrong — based on factual findings or legal considerations clearly untenable on summary assessment (Meril v Edwards, Windhager v Belissa, ALPINA v CUP&CINO, Belkin v Philips, Chint v Jingao) — including evident breach of fundamental procedural rights liable to affect the outcome (Philips v Belkin UPC_CoA_549/2024; RiVOLUTiON v Cilag UPC_CoA_737/2025). On the merits: a production order under Art. 59 UPCA / R. 190 RoP admits evidence to the evidentiary record; if the appeal succeeds, the documents are excluded — the appeal therefore retains purpose. The Court construed the confidentiality club's reference to 'legal representatives and their team' under Art. 48 UPCA terms (Member-State court advocates and European Patent Attorneys with the EPLC) and interpreted the order as forbidding sharing of confidential information with the claimant — including its CEO and administrative directors — by the representatives. The irreparable harm flowing from disclosure to the confidentiality club does not satisfy the framework, and no factual pre-judgment of the merits arises because UPC procedure rests on the principle that facts and evidence are to be adduced as early as possible (Rule 222 RoP).