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

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

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.