UPC_CoA_108/2026 – AIM v TGI Sport

Expert Commentary

Rectification Facts 1. AIM lost the infringement action against TGI Sport. 2. The PI proceedings were disposed of by the Court. AIM had to pay the costs of the PI proceedings. 3. AIM appealed against the infringement decision and against the PI order (as it did not agree with the cost decision). 4. The Statement of Appeal in the PI proceedings also listed TGI Sport Virtual UK as defendant 6, but that defendant was not a defendant in the PI proceedings. 5. The Court asked AIM what the reason for this was. AIM stated that this was a mistake and asked for rectification. The JR of the Court of Appeal The Registry checks the formalities, but that does not mean that the Court cannot check and rule on formalities. In this case, the Registry did not notice the mistake, but the Court picked it up. This is a clear, obvious error. The Court allows rectification. Comment As already stated earlier, the formalities check by the Registry is unnecessary. It leads to unnecessary delays and extra work for the Registry. The formalities can be (and, as we see in this case, will be anyway) checked by the Court. The same applies to service of documents. That should be done by the party who wants to serve. In practice, that works fine in countries where this is practised. I hope the Rules are changed to this effect. It certainly does not mean that the (sub)registry is out of work. My experience is that very smart people work in the registry and that if these measures would lead to more time they can assist the judges – especially as my suggestion to give each judge a law clerk (“stagiaire”) falls on deaf ears.

Full Decision Text

UPC Court of Appeal UPC-CoA-108/2026 ORDER 16 July 2026 Patent in suit: EP 3 295 663 **APPELLANT (CLAIMANT AND COUNTERDEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)** AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as ‘AIM’) represented by attorneys at law Ari Laakkonen and other representatives of the law firm Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP, Dublin, Ireland as well as David Por of the law firm Clifford Chance Europe LLP, Paris, France **RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)** 1. TGI SPORT SUOMI OY (previously SUPPONOR OY), Espoo, Finland 2. TGI SPORT VIRTUAL LIMITED (previously SUPPONOR LIMITED), London, United Kingdom 3. TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, France 4. TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Busto Arsizio, Italy 5. TGI SPORT MARKETING ESPAÑA, S.L. (previously SUPPONOR ESPAÑA SL), Barcelona, Spain 6. [TGI SPORT VIRTUAL UK LIMITED (previously SUPPONOR U.K. LTD), London, United Kingdom] (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘TGI’) all represented by attorneys at law Dr. Henrik Lehment of the law firm Hogan Lovells International LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany, Dr. Matthias Sonntag of the law firm Gleiss Lutz, Düsseldorf, Germany and other representatives authorised to practice before the Unified Patent Court **PATENT IN SUIT** EP 3 295 663 **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS** English **PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES** Panel 2 Patricia Rombach, judge-rapporteur and legally qualified judge **IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE** Date: 29 April 2026, Helsinki Local Division, Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance: ACT_551054/2023 (provisional measures proceedings, R. 360 RoP) **SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND THE REQUESTS** 1. AIM filed an infringement action (UPC-CFI-214/2023) together with an application for provisional measures (hereinafter referred to as ‘PI’, ACT_551054/2023) against TGI. TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited was added as Defendant 6 to the infringement action, following an application by AIM pursuant to R. 263 RoP to amend its Statement of Claim. The Helsinki Local Division upheld TGI's preliminary objection and dismissed both the infringement action and the PI application for lack of competence and jurisdiction. 2. On 12 November 2024 (UPC-CoA-489/2023 and UPC-CoA-500/2023) the Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the Helsinki Local Division and referred the action and the application for provisional measures back to the Helsinki Local Division. The PI proceedings were subsequently discontinued. The Helsinki Local Division deferred any decision on costs pending the outcome of the infringement action. 3. On 29 April 2026, the Helsinki Local Division dismissed the infringement action and, in the impugned order disposed of the PI application (ACT_551054/2023). 4. AIM filed an appeal against the impugned order as well as against the decision dismissing the infringement action. The statement of appeal relating to the PI proceedings also lists TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as Defendant 6. The Court invited AIM to comment on the question of why TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited is included as respondent. **PARTY’S SUBMISSIONS** 5. In summary, AIM submits that the inclusion of TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited was an error and requests that TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited be considered deleted from the Statement of Appeal. **REASONS** 6. The Registry's completion and validation of the formal requirements in the Case Management System should not be understood as a determination that all formal requirements under R. 225, 226 and 299 RoP, or any other applicable provisions, have been fully and finally satisfied. Rather, it signifies that the Registry has conducted its examination of the formal requirements at that stage of the proceedings. The Court remains entitled, at any subsequent stage, to raise questions, seek clarifications, request further information or documentation, and make inquiries concerning compliance with procedural formalities, the payment of court fees, or any other matter relevant to the proper conduct of the proceedings. 7. The Statement of Appeal contains an obvious error in including TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as respondent. This error must be corrected at AIM's request. TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited must be considered deleted from the Statement of Appeal. 8. According to R. 56 in conjunction with R. 73 of the Rules governing the Registry of the Unified Patent Court, the Registrar shall ensure that case files are complete and accurate recordings of the proceedings. Therefore, if an obvious error is identified, it must be corrected. 9. This order does not disadvantage TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. It was therefore not necessary to hear TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. **ORDER** 1. TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited must be considered deleted from the Statement of Appeal. 2. It is ordered that the Registry remove TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited from the register in the proceedings UPC-CoA-108/2026. Issued on 16 July 2026 Patricia Rombach, judge-rapporteur and legally qualified judge Case management decisions or orders made by the judge-rapporteur shall be reviewed by the panel, on a reasoned Application by a party (R. 333.1 RoP).

Key Holdings

• The Court of Appeal has the power to rectify clear and obvious errors in formal filings, even if the Registry initially missed them.
• The Court's authority to check formalities is distinct from and not precluded by the Registry's initial review.
• Rectification was granted for a procedural error where a non-party was mistakenly listed as a defendant in an appeal statement.
• The author suggests that formalities checks and service of documents should primarily be handled by the Court and parties, respectively, to streamline processes and reduce Registry workload.

Tags

• Rectification
• Procedural Error
• Formalities
• Registry
• Appeal
• Costs

Related Cases

• UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Docket Navigator v Sumi Agro and Syngenta
• UPC_CoA_917/2025 – Merz v Viatris
• UPC_CoA_891/2025 – Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks
• UPC-COA-0000894/2025 – Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v bellissa HAAS GmbH
• UPC_CoA_012/2026 – Amazon v Interdigital