Dainese v Alpinestars (CoA, 16 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 22 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 16 October 2026 (UPC_CoA_97/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal dismissed the application by Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A. and Motocard Bike S.L. to stay the appeal brought by Dainese S.p.A. against the decision of the Milan Local Division of 21 April 2026 (EP 4 072 364) until the written decision of the EPO Board of Appeal, holding the application inadmissible for want of the representatives’ signature and, in any event, unfounded.

Question

Is an application for a stay admissible when it does not bear the representatives’ signature, and should the Court of Appeal await the written decision of the EPO Board of Appeal where the Board has already ruled orally on the maintenance of the patent?

Decision

The application did not bear the signature of the Respondents’ authorised UPC representatives. It therefore failed to meet Rule 4.1 RoP, which does not, however, require a qualified or advanced electronic signature, and was inadmissible (paras 14 to 17). It would in any case have been unfounded. As a general principle the Court does not stay proceedings (para 18), and the word « may » in Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP confers a discretionary power (para 21). A rapid decision of the EPO could indeed be expected, since the Board of Appeal decided orally at the hearing of 15 October 2026 to maintain the patent in amended form on the basis of auxiliary request 2 (paras 23 and 24). That auxiliary request, however, had already been in issue before the Court of First Instance (para 25), and the Respondents still had 40 days before their Statement of response fell due on 24 November 2026 to take the outcome of the EPO appeal into account (para 26). A stay offering no decisive procedural advantage, the application was dismissed (para 27).

Key points for practice

• A pleading lodged through the CMS must bear the signature of the authorised representatives. Logging into the system is not enough, but no qualified or advanced electronic signature is required (paras 14 and 15).
• An oral ruling of a Board of Appeal on an auxiliary request already argued before the UPC does not warrant staying the appeal where the timetable leaves the parties room to address it (paras 25 to 27).

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Article 33(10) UPCA

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4.1 and 295(a) RoP

Case law cited

SharkNinja v SEB, Court of Appeal, 22 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_61/2026), ESKO-SOFTWARE v IN(K)CONTROL, Court of Appeal, 8 October 2026 (UPC_CoA_73/2026), Carrier v BITZER, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_22/2024), Juul v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_5/2025)

Related decisions

• Dainese v Alpinestars, Court of Appeal, 10 September 2026, order in the same appeal dismissing the application to have it declared manifestly inadmissible.
• Dainese v Alpinestars, Milan Local Division, 21 April 2026, decision under appeal.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 22 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.