UPC_CoA_54/2026 – Belkin v Philips
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Start of the appeal term Facts 1. Philips filed an infringement action against Belkin based on EP 2 867 997. 2. On 11 February 2026, the Munich Local Division held an oral hearing and gave a panel decision without the reasons. 3. On 13 April 2026, Belkin appealed the decision. 4. Belkin requested to be exempted from filing grounds of appeal and formulating the remedies sought until the grounds of the first instance decision were provided. The Court of Appeal 1. The Court of Appeal referred to Art. 77(1) UPCA, which states that decisions or orders must be “reasoned”. 2. This means that a decision is only complete once the reasons have also been served. Therefore, the two-month period for lodging a Statement of appeal only begins after the reasons have been served. 3. Therefore, Belkin’s requests were denied because the time period for lodging an appeal has not yet begun. Comment 1. Understandably, Belkin did not want to take any risks. The Court of Appeal issued a logical and practical decision that put the matter to rest. 2. Such “on the spot” decisions immediately after the oral arguments are customary in opposition proceedings at the EPO and are liked by litigants (certainly if you win!). However, they are not without risks. A judge once told me that, after a hearing, the whole panel was convinced of the outcome, but when he tried to write down the reasons for the decision down on paper, he realized that it was actually wrong, and the entire panel changed its mind. This also happened once at the EPO, and the Opposition Division issued a different written decision to the one announced orally. This, of course, is not possible (as also ruled by the Board of Appeal)!
Full Decision Text
Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16 April 2026 concerning an extension of a time period (R.9.3(a) and 224.1(a) RoP) HEADNOTES: The time period for lodging a Statement appeal begins to run only when the Court of First Instance (CFI) issues a decision including the reasons (see CoA, 12 July 2024, UPC CoA 328/2024, Ballino v Kinexon). KEYWORDS: - Commencement of the time period for lodging the Statement of appeal (R. 224 RoP) A PPELLANTS (AND D EFENDANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF F IRST INSTANCE ): 1. Belkin International Inc., El Segundo, United States of America, 2. Belkin B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3. Belkin Limited, Wellingborough, United Kingdom, (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘Belkin’) represented by: Dr. Joschua Fiedler, attorney at law of the law firm DLA PIPER UK LLP, Munich, Germany RESPONDENT (AND CLAIMANT BEFORE THE COURT OF F IRST INSTANCE ): Koninklijke Philips N.V., Eindhoven, The Netherlands, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Philips’) represented by: Dr. Tilman Müller, attorney at law, of the law firm Bardehle Pagenberg, Hamburg, Germany UPC Court of Appeal PR-UPC-COA-0000054/2026 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English P ATENT AT ISSUE : EP 2 867 997 P ANEL AND DECIDING J UDGES: This order has been issued by the second panel consisting of: Rian Kalden, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge IMPUGNED D ECISION OR ORDER OF THE COURT OF F IRST INSTANCE : Decision of the Munich Local Division of 11 February 2026, issued in the infringement proceedings UPC CFI 171/2025 S UMMARY OF F ACTS: 1. Philips filed an infringement action against Belkin based on EP 2 867 997. 2. On 11 February 2026, the Local Division held an oral hearing and issued a panel decision without reasons. 3. On 13 April 2026, Belkin appealed the decision. P ARTY ´S REQUESTS: 4. Belkin requests that the Court of Appeal extend the deadline for the request under R. 225(e) RoP until the deadline for lodging the Grounds of appeal, in the alternative, that the Court of Appeal send a formal request to correct deficiencies pursuant to R. 229.2 RoP. P ARTIES S UBMISSIONS: 5. Essentially, Belkin submits that without knowing the grounds of the decision Belkin is not able to formulate the order or remedy sought (R. 225 (e) RoP). GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER : 6. It follows from R. 9.4 RoP that the Court shall not extend the time period for the Statement of appeal. It can be left open, whether it follows that after the time period for lodging the Statement of appeal has passed, deficiencies in the notice of appeal lodged within the deadline may be remedied only by means of a formal request pursuant to R. 229.2 RoP. This is because the time limit for lodging an appeal has not yet started in the present case. 7. Pursuant to R. 224.1(a) RoP a Statement of appeal shall be lodged by the Appellant within two months of service of a decision referred to in R. 220.1 (a) and (b) RoP. According to Art. 77(1) UPCA decisions and orders of the Court shall be reasoned. The grounds of the decision are indispensable in order to be able to formulate the order or remedy sought (R. 225 (e) RoP). It follows that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal begins to run only when the Court of First Instance (CFI) issues a decision including the reasons (see CoA, 12 July 2024, UPC CoA 328/2024, Ballino v Kinexon). 8. In light of this, there is no reason to extend the deadline for filing an appeal that has not yet begun. The same applies if the appellant - as in this case - requests an extension of the deadline only with respect to certain requirements for the appeal. 9. Nor is it necessary to give Belkin the opportunity to address the deficiency arising from the absence of the requirements set out in R. 225(e) RoP by sending a formal request pursuant to R. 229.2 RoP. ORDER : Belkin´s requests are denied. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE P ARTIES AND THE REGISTRY: o Due to technical reasons this order is being sent to the representatives via Tresorit and will be uploaded to the CMS at a later stage. o As soon as Belkin intends to lodge a supplement Statement of appeal, it shall notify the Registry (lu coa registry@unifiedpatentcourt.org) so that a notice to remedy deficiencies can be issued in the CMS under case number PR-UPC-COA-0000054/2026. This will enable Belkin to upload the supplement Statement of appeal and any other necessary documents. Issued on 16 April 2026 Rian Kalden, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge
Key Holdings
- Decisions or orders by the UPC must be reasoned as per Art. 77(1) UPCA.
- A decision is considered complete only after the reasons for the decision have been served.
- The two-month period for lodging a Statement of appeal commences only after the reasoned decision has been served.
- Requests to be exempted from filing grounds of appeal until reasons are provided are denied if the appeal period has not yet begun due to unserved reasons.
Tags
- Appeal term
- Procedural
- Reasons for decision
- Timelines
- Appeals