Canfield Scientific v QUANTIFICARE (CoA, 2 October 2026)
| Date | 2 October 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_99/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-COA-0000099/2026 |
| Parties | Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific, Inc., Canfield Scientific Europe B.V. v. QUANTIFICARE S.A. |
| Language | German |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 2 October 2026 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_99/2026 and UPC_CoA_110/2026, the Court of Appeal rejected the applications of Canfield Scientific and the other appellants to stay their appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision of 23 April 2026, which had largely upheld QUANTIFICARE’s infringement action (EP 3 156 843) and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. The stay was sought pending a revocation action brought on 24 August 2026 before the Paris Central Division by a third party, Manteana Holdings. The order closes off a route for circumventing the control of new submissions on appeal.
Question
Does a third party’s revocation action pending before the Central Division justify staying an appeal that also concerns validity?
Decision
A stay, available under Rules 118.2(b) and 242.2(a) RoP, requires special circumstances justifying the delay (paragraphs 8 and 9). A third party’s action is not such a circumstance (paragraph 10), since the appeal is directed against the dismissal of the counterclaim, the Court must itself assess validity (paragraph 11). Staying for arguments that could be raised only before the Central Division would circumvent Rule 222.2 RoP (paragraph 12). Finally, Manteana’s action is at the start of the written procedure, whereas the appeal is well advanced (paragraph 13).
Key points for practice
- A parallel revocation action, even before the Central Division, does not allow an appeal that already covers validity to be put on hold.
- New submissions remain subject to Rule 222.2 RoP, with no detour through proceedings brought by a third party.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Preamble, recitals 3 and 7
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 118.2(b), 222.2, 242.2(a) and 295(m)
- Case law cited
- bioMérieux v Labrador, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_937/2025)
Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).
Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).