Opens in a new tab

OrthoApnea v *** (CoA, 26 July 2024)

Date26 July 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop 223
Registry referenceApp_42818/2024 · ORD_43804/2024
PartiesOrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v. ***

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 July 2024 (App_42818/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal refused the application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) lodged by OrthoApnea and Vivisol B against the Brussels Local Division’s order of 19 July 2024, which had refused to suspend the time limit for their rejoinder, kept at 1 August 2024, in the infringement action on EP 2 331 036 brought by a claimant whose name is redacted (UPC_CFI_376/2023). The remaining requests were referred to the competent panel.

Question

May a defendant obtain, through suspensive effect of its appeal, a suspension of the time limit for its rejoinder until the admissibility of an infringement-by-equivalence argument raised in the reply has been decided?

Decision

The application is admissible: without suspensive effect, the appeal against the refusal to extend the time limit could become devoid of purpose (paragraphs 6 to 9). Suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223 RoP is granted only in exceptional circumstances (paragraph 7). Urgency is established, since the time limit expires five days later (paragraph 10). The application is nonetheless unfounded: parties must file their pleadings without knowing how they will be assessed, and the refusal to exclude the equivalence argument is not manifestly wrong in view of how the proceedings have developed (paragraphs 11 to 15), the time limit had already been extended by two weeks (paragraph 16). The requests for an extension, for exclusion of the argument and on costs go to the substance of the appeal (paragraphs 17 and 18).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 74(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 223 and 263
Case law cited
ICPillar, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024)

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.
First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_376/2023

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application Rop 223
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande d'effet suspensif est rejetée, le délai de duplique restant fixé au 1er août 2024, les autres demandes sont renvoyées à la chambre compétente.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_376/2023).
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 331 036
Device for treating night time breathing problems
recorded proprietor: Personne physique (déposant individuel)
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): OrthoApnea v *** (CFI, 25 July 2025) · Appellant*** v ORTHOAPNEA (CoA, 3 July 2025) · OrthoApnea v *** (CFI, 2 May 2025) · OrthoApnea v *** (CoA, 21 November 2024) · *** v OrthoApnea (CFI, 17 September 2024) · OrthoApnea (CFI, 19 July 2024) · OrthoApnea (CFI, 8 July 2024) · *** v OrthoApnea (CFI, 21 September 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.