- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Metals & Mining and Law Firm industries
1. Key takeaways
Exception to the rule of no suspensive effect for appeals against first-instance orders granting access to files
Grounds for ordering suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA may exist where the Court of First Instance has granted an application for access to pleadings and evidence pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, and it is likely that this order will become enforceable before the Court of Appeal has ruled on the defendant's appeal. The Court of Appeal thus continues its jurisprudence from Ocado v. Autostore (UPC_CoA, 6 November 2023 – UPC_CoA_407/2023_App_584588/2023) and, although not explicitly stated, clarifies that granting suspensive effect should be the general rule for appeals against first-instance orders that grant access to files. (order, para 9 et seqq.)
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_0000926/2025
UPC_CoA_0000927/2025
4. Type of proceedings
File inspection
5. Parties
Appellant:
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, P.R. China
Respondents:
TP-Link Systems Inc., CA, Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, Düsseldorf, Deutschland
TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, Vélizy-Villacoublay,
Frankreich
TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., ME Nieuwegein, Die
Niederlande
TP-Link Italia S.R.L., Cernusco sul Naviglio MI, Italien
TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Solna, Schweden
Lianzhou International Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, P.R. China
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 678 321
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 74(1) UPCA, Rule 262.1 lit b RoP, Rule 223.2 RoP
CoA_926_2025_CoA_927_2025 Download
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.
