2026-09-28 - CoA - NVIDIA v. Bf Exaqc et al. - UPC-COA-0000140/2026

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal granted re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP to a defendant whose counterclaim for revocation had been made conditional on a finding of infringement and therefore not decided by the LD Munich, which dismissed the infringement action. The defendant had not appealed within the R. 224 RoP periods because, under the CoA's case law requiring an appellant to be adversely affected (R. 220.1 RoP), it was not obvious that a conditional counterclaimant had a sufficient interest to appeal a non-decision it had itself requested; it could reasonably assume it could pursue the counterclaim in its response to the claimants' appeal or in a cross-appeal under R. 237 RoP. The CoA's clarification to the contrary (Emboline v AorticLab, 16 July 2026) came only after both the two-month and four-month periods had expired and could not have been known to the defendant. The cause of the missed time limit was removed on the date of that clarification order, so the request, the fee and the statements of appeal and grounds filed within one month of it satisfied R. 320.2 and R. 320.4 RoP; the respondents did not oppose.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Aktenzeichen: UPC-COA-0000140/2026