2026-08-05 - CoA - Vectis IP et al. v. Acer et al. - UPC-COA-0000120/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000120/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Vectis IP Ltd., Dolby International AB v. CPYou B.V., Acer Italy SRL, Acer Computer GmbH, Acer Computer B.V Benelux, Acer Denmark A S, Acer Finland Oy, Acer Computer France, Acer Sweden AB
Kernaussage: The Court of Appeal refused to stay the first-instance SEP proceedings in The Hague and refused suspensive effect of an appeal against an order that had declared a FRAND rate-setting counterclaim admissible against an intervening patent-pool administrator.
2026-08-05 - CoA - Vectis IP et al.
v.
Acer et al. - UPC-COA-0000120/2026
notable
The Court of Appeal refused to stay the first-instance SEP proceedings in The Hague and refused suspensive effect of an appeal against an order that had declared a FRAND rate-setting counterclaim admissible against an intervening patent-pool administrator. The Court applied the general rule that first-instance proceedings continue unhindered by procedural appeals (the principle underlying R. 19.6 RoP and Art. 74(1) UPCA), which yields only in exceptional circumstances or where the impugned order is manifestly wrong; neither was shown, because the first instance will in any event have to deal with the FRAND defence and the negotiation record. R. 295(m) RoP was held to give no separate route to a stay that R. 21.2 RoP would refuse, and the same manifest-error threshold governs suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223 RoP. The Court further held that the one-month period for a Preliminary objection under R. 19.1 RoP had expired, so international jurisdiction can no longer be decided under R. 20 RoP but may still form part of the final decision. Finally, the appeal of the first appellant was held inadmissible: the requirement of R. 220.1 RoP that a party be adversely affected applies equally to appeals with leave under R. 220.2 RoP, and the operative part of the impugned order ruled only on the counterclaim against the intervener.