Suspensive effect for an appeal is the exception to the rule as is shown by these three decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal in two days in April
IPPT20250418, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
Suspensive effect appeal rejected. Suspensive effect pursuant to Art. 74 UPCA can only be granted if, on the basis of the circumstances, the appellant's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent's interest. The mere fact that an appeal is pending against a decision concerning an action and counterclaims for revocation is, however, not sufficient to order suspensive effect of the appeal against the decision in the related infringement action. The enforcer of the injunction contacting distributors of the infringer’s products, does not affect this balance of interests, since the impugned decision does not apply to these third parties.
IPPT20250417, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm
Suspensive effect appeal rejected (Article 74 UPCA). Kodak has failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors, i.e. factual findings or legal considerations which prove to be untenable already on the basis of a summary assessment. Incorrect understanding of the scope of R. 171.2 RoP regarding uncontested facts. If there is an uncontested fact, this does not imply that the legal consequence for which this fact was submitted automatically follows. It still falls upon the Court to decide whether the facts advanced justify such a legal consequence.
IPPT20250417, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application to grant suspensive effect for appeal of cost order up to the applicable ceiling of € 112.000 in order dismissing provisional measures rejected (Article 74 UPCA). The risks of problems of enforcement put forward by Barco are not such as to make the appeal devoid of purpose absent suspensive effect (ICPillar vs. ARM,).
