- within Transport topic(s)
1 Key takeaways
An appeal against a revocation decision always has an automatic suspensive effect according to Art. 74(2) UPCA that applies to the entire decision, including the award of costs
The Court rejected the Applicants' argument for a narrow interpretation, finding it an "arbitrary limitation". It held the suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety, rendering the basis for the cost claim temporarily ineffective.
An application for a cost decision is not untimely just because an appeal is later filed, as the time limits for each are different
The Court noted the one-month time limit for a cost application (R.150 RoP) versus the two-month time limit for an appeal makes the "simultaneous pendency of the two proceedings is normal", even when the appeal has automatic suspensive effect.
The Court may stay cost proceedings in accordance with the general principles of flexibility, fairness, proportionality, and equity and in application of R.295(c) nd (m) RoP
The Court stayed the cost proceedings to reasonably and efficiently coordinate the two proceedings.
2 Division
LD Milan
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_1738/2025
4 Type of proceedings
infringement action
5 Parties
Applicants: AWM s.r.l., Italy; Schnell s.p.a., Italy
Respondent: Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, Italy
6 Patent
EP 2 726 230
7 Jurisdictions
Place jurisdictions
8 Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 150 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
