2026-10-16 - CoA - Dainese v. Alpinestars et al. - UPC-COA-0000097/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000097/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Dainese S.p.A. v. Motocard Bike S.L., Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A.
Kernaussage: The Court of Appeal judge-rapporteur dismissed the respondents' application to stay the appeal until the EPO Board of Appeal issues its written decision on the validity of the patent.
2026-10-16 - CoA - Dainese
v.
Alpinestars et al. - UPC-COA-0000097/2026
notable
The Court of Appeal judge-rapporteur dismissed the respondents' application to stay the appeal until the EPO Board of Appeal issues its written decision on the validity of the patent. The application was inadmissible because it bore no signature of the respondents' UPC representatives: R. 4.1 RoP requires the pleading itself to be signed, logging into the CMS does not suffice, but no qualified or advanced electronic signature is required. On the merits, the Court will as a rule not stay proceedings; under Art. 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP a rapid EPO decision permits but does not compel a stay, which depends on the balance of interests. Although a rapid decision was expected, the Board had already announced orally that the patent was maintained in the form of an auxiliary request that had been before the first instance, and the respondents still had 40 days before their Statement of response was due, so a stay offered no decisive procedural advantage.