- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Healthcare industries
1. Key takeaways
Suspensive effect is exceptional and rarely granted for procedural orders
The Court confirmed three categories of exceptional circumstances that may justify a stay: (1) irreversibility of enforcement consequences; (2) manifest error in the impugned order; and (3) evident breach of fundamental procedural rights liable to affect the outcome of the proceedings.
Under Art. 74(3) UPCA, an appeal against a procedural order does not prevent continuation of first-instance proceedings, though the Court of First Instance shall not render a final decision before the Court of Appeal has ruled on the appeal. This underscores the need for restraint when granting suspensive effect for such orders.
Disclosure of evidence is not irreparable harm if a successful appeal can exclude it from the record
The defendant argued that disclosure of its core technical know-how would cause irreparable harm rendering the appeal moot. The Court rejected this, holding that a successful appeal would result in the exclusion of the produced documents from the evidentiary record, thereby effectively reversing the order’s legal consequences.
An “attorneys’-eyes-only” confidentiality club sufficiently protects trade secrets during evidence production
“Legal representatives” refers to qualified attorneys (Art. 48 UPCA, Art. 134 EPC), not the claimant’s executives. They are prohibited from sharing confidential information with the claimant itself. These representatives are bound to use the information exclusively for the litigation. The defendant did not argue that the number of persons in the club was disproportionate.
Early evidence production aligns with the UPC’s front-loading principle and is not an improper pre-judgment
The defendant argued that ordered disclosure would pre-judge the case and bypass the distinction between the infringement and remedies phases. The Court held that the UPC system requires all facts and evidence to be adduced as early as possible, ideally during the written procedure. This is confirmed by R. 222 RoP, which generally excludes from appeal any evidence not submitted at first instance.
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_COA_57/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Application for suspensive effect
5. Parties
Appellant (Defendant): Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH
Respondent (Claimant): Dall Energy ApS
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 334 762
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 48 UPCA, Art. 59 UPCA, Art. 73(2) UPCA, Art. 74(1) UPCA, Art. 74(3) UPCA, Art. 134 EPC, R. 171 RoP, R. 190 RoP, R. 220.1(c) RoP, R. 222 RoP, R. 223 RoP, R. 262A.6 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]