UPC_CoA_93/2026 – Siemens v Hologic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Pharma/Bio
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Suspensive effect Facts 1. Hologic lodged an infringement action against Siemens based on EP 2 352 431. 2. On 10 June 2026, the Local Division Düsseldorf ruled that the patent was infringed and dismissed the Counterclaim for revocation. 3. Siemens appealed the next day and filed an application for suspensive effect on 19 June 2026. 4. Hologic lodged its comments on 3 July 2026. The Court 1. The Court repeats the basic principles: suspensive effect is an exception which may apply: a. if the decision is manifestly erroneous, or b. if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose, or c. in case of an infringement of fundamental procedural rights such as the right to be heard. 2. The Court states that a summary examination does not reveal a manifestly erroneous interpretation of claim element 4.1 (“in one position”). 3. The Court remarks: “23. Since, even with regard to any numerical values, no manifest error of the Local Division can be identified on summary examination, the Appeal also reserves the right to assess whether the case law of the Court of Appeal cited by the Appellants (UPC CoA, Decision of 2 June 2026, UPC-CoA-882/2025, Kodak vs. Fujifilm), is applicable to the present case, and if so if it leads to the conclusion that the findings of the Local Division are incorrect.” 4. The Court also concludes that there is no violation of the right to be heard. The Court states the following: “27. The principle of the right to be heard obliges the court to take note of and give due consideration to the submissions of the parties to the proceedings. Among other things, this principle requires the court to deal with the essential substance of a party’s submissions and, insofar as they relate to a central issue in the proceedings in question, to address them in its reasoning. An infringement of this duty must be presumed if the grounds for the court’s decision allow only the conclusion that the court has completely disregarded the party’s submissions, or if the grounds are based on an interpretation that captures, at most, the literal wording but not the meaning of the party’s submissions. 28. As the Appellants correctly argue, referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR, judgment of 24 May 2005, 61302/00, Buzescu vs. Romania), the right to be heard does not require for the court to expressly and exhaustively address each and every argument in detail in its decision. At least the parties’ core arguments must be reflected in it.” 5. Granting an injunction prohibiting manufacture when the only infringing act alleged is “offering” is not a manifest error but is in line with the case law. Comment 1. Although the Court states that its conclusions are reached after “summary examination”, Siemens gets value for its money because it is sent home with a very detailed and convincing reasoning. 2. Hereabove I have reproduced verbatim consideration 23, which shows that you have to be careful not to read too much into a decision of the Court of Appeal while the final decision is reserved for the main case. However, I do not think that Siemens is going to win the appeal with the argument that, with respect to the interpretation of “in one position”, you have to apply the case law on numerical values. Already grammatically (without studying the description), “one” has many more meanings than “1”! 3. If a lawyer loses a case, he/she often feels that the Court has not paid attention to an argument he/she had made. It is therefore instructive for all lawyers to read considerations 27 and 28 (see hereabove), which perfectly summarize what you can expect from a judgment.
Key Holdings
- Suspensive effect is an exceptional measure, granted only under strict conditions: manifest error, appeal becoming devoid of purpose, or infringement of fundamental procedural rights.
- A summary examination for suspensive effect does not constitute a final assessment of the appeal's merits, and findings are not binding for the main case.
- The right to be heard requires courts to address the essential substance of a party's submissions, but not to exhaustively detail every argument.
- Granting an injunction for an 'offering' infringement is consistent with case law and not a manifest error.
- The Court of Appeal provides detailed reasoning even in summary examinations for suspensive effect applications.
Tags
- Suspensive Effect
- Appeal Proceedings
- Right to be Heard
- Claim Construction
- Injunction