Article 73

Appeal

1.   An appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance may be brought before the Court of Appeal by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of the notification of the decision.

2.   An appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance may be brought before the Court of Appeal by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions:

(a) for the orders referred to in Articles 49(5), 59 to 62 and 67 within 15 calendar days of the notification of the order to the applicant;

(b) for other orders than the orders referred to in point (a):

(i) together with the appeal against the decision, or

(ii) where the Court grants leave to appeal, within 15 days of the notification of the Court's decision to that effect.

3.   The appeal against a decision or an order of the Court of First Instance may be based on points of law and matters of fact.

4.   New facts and new evidence may only be introduced in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and where the submission thereof by the party concerned could not reasonably have been expected during proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20241015, UPC CoA, Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys
Leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. The phrase that the order "is subject to appeal under the conditions laid down by the provisions of R. 220.2 RoP" is for information purposes only and not a grant of leave to appeal (Article 73(2) UPCA).

IPPT20240925, UPC CoA, Mammut v Ortovox

Scope of appeal and proceedings (Article 73(4) UPCA, R. 222.1 RoP). The Court of Appeal decides at its discretion, taking into account all the circumstances, whether a submission that was rightly not admitted by the Court of First Instance is to be considered in the appeal proceedings. The subject matter of the appeal proceedings in proceedings for the review of interim measures is in principle limited to the submissions made in the proceedings for the grant of interim measures. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, the statement of grounds of appeal must be sufficiently clear and specific to enable the respondent to prepare a defence of the judgment at first instance and to enable the court hearing the appeal to decide the appeal. The court may not take into account in its decision written submissions that are submitted only after the conclusion of the oral proceedings on which the decision is based. (R. 195 RoP).

IPPT20240916, UPC CoA, ICPillar v ARM
Court may of its own motion disregard late filed requests, facts and evidence even if these were not objected to by the other party (Article 73(4) UPCA, R. 222.2 RoP). 

IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, AIM Sport v Supponor
Parties requested to comment on non-compliance with Rule 224.1(b) RoP, providing that a Statement of Appeal of an order has to be filed within 15 days of service of an order referred to in Rule 220.1(c) RoP. Under “Information about Appeal” the CFI has indicated that the decision could be appealed within two months of the date of notification of the decision, referring to Article 73(1) UPCA and Rule 220.1(a) and Rule 224.1(a) RoP concerning an appeal against a decision, such as a decision in an infringement action, while in one of the two actions AIM sought a preliminary injunction order pursuant to Article 62 UPCA.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20240729, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Powell Gilbert v Abbott and Sibio
Public access to the register granted, applying criteria set forth in IPPT20240410, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore (Rule 262 RoP). Leave to appeal granted. From R. 220/224 RoP and 73 UPCA it might not be totally clear if and when an appeal of this order can be lodged, while it appears this should at any rate be made possible. To prevent an appeal to become meaningless, a term of 15 days before access is granted is to be observed (and unless no appeal is filed within that period).

IPPT20240227, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences
Leave to appeal rejected (Article 73 UPCA, Rule 220 RoP). In the absence of any precedents from the UPC on the disputed issue, there is no concrete need for a ruling on the meaning of the relevant rules; In case of a possible immediate appeal to this order a decision by the Court of appeal may intervene after that the oral hearing in the current proceedings has taken place and, therefore, would be of no practical use to the parties.

IPPT20231113, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences

Preliminary objection concerning the competence of the Central Division because of a pending action before the Munich Local Division rejected: Meril Italia is not the same party a Meril India or Meril Germany (article 33(4)UPCA, Rule 20 RoP). No leave for appeal granted, because the Respondent has no actual and concrete interest in it (Rule 220 RoP). This decision is not capable of causing any harm to the Respondent, since a prejudice to its positon may arise only by the decision that allows the Preliminary objection.