2026-04-28 - CoA - Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o v. Topcon - UPC-COA-0000056/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000056/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v. Topcon Corporation
Kernaussage: The Court of Appeal (standing judge Van den Broek) dismissed Optopol's R.
2026-04-28 - CoA - Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o
v.
Topcon - UPC-COA-0000056/2026
notable
The Court of Appeal (standing judge Van den Broek) dismissed Optopol's R. 220.3 RoP request for discretionary review of the LD Düsseldorf's procedural order of 1 April 2026, in which the LD had refused Topcon's R. 320 RoP application for re-establishment of rights but had retroactively extended under R. 9.3(a) RoP the time period for the (late-filed) Reply, Defence to Counterclaim and Application to Amend. Following Angelalign v Angel Technology (UPC_CoA_37/2026, 10 March 2026), the CoA confirmed that an LD may treat a R. 320 application as containing an implicit R. 9.3(a) request when reasoning and alternative requests so warrant; that human error by an assistant within a documented system of deadline checks may be deemed excusable; and that bad-faith allegations and additional alleged failures weighed differently than the applicant prefers do not amount to manifest error. The standing judge applied the Motorola v Ericsson / Centripetal v Keysight test (manifest incorrectness or fundamental legal question necessary for consistent application of the RoP).