AWM v Progress Maschinen & Automation (CFI, 10 February 2026)
| Date | 10 February 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application For Costs |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1738/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_1738/2025 |
| Parties | SCHNELL S.P.A., A.W.M. S.R.L v. Progress Maschinen & Automation AG |
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
In an order of 10 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1738/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division stayed the cost application brought by AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. against Progress Maschinen & Automation AG until the Court of Appeal rules on the appeal against the decision revoking EP 2 726 230. He held that the automatic suspensive effect of Art. 74(2) UPCA covers the whole decision, including the costs order, and expressly departed from a contrary order of the Central Division.
Question
Does an appeal against a decision revoking a patent also suspend the costs order, and should cost proceedings brought in the meantime be dismissed or stayed?
Decision
Art. 74(2), under which an appeal against a decision on an action or counterclaim for revocation always has suspensive effect, is not confined to the validity part of the decision: reading it that narrowly would impose an arbitrary limitation not found in the text. It is not out of time, however: since the one-month period under Rule 150 is shorter than the two-month appeal period, parallel proceedings are normal. The two are coordinated by a stay under Rule 295(c) and (m), on grounds of flexibility, fairness and proportionality, until the Court of Appeal decides (UPC_CoA_921/2025) or the dispute otherwise ends. The judge-rapporteur departed from the Paris Central Division order of 29 April 2025, which had not considered Art. 74(2).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: after a revocation decision is appealed, the successful party must still file its cost application within the one-month period of Rule 150, but should expect a stay until the appeal is decided.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 74(2)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 150 and 295(c) and (m)
- Case law cited
- Roche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care Europe, Paris Central Division, 29 April 2025, OrthoApnea, Brussels Local Division, 2 May 2025
Related decisions
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: Court fees and costs (UPC).
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
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.
Parties
- claimantSCHNELL S.P.A5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantA.W.M. S.R.LFollow this party
- defendantProgress Maschinen & Automation AG11 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application For Costs
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- L'effet suspensif automatique de l'appel prévu par l'article 74(2) de l'Accord s'étend au chef relatif aux frais. La demande de fixation des frais, recevable, est suspendue jusqu'à l'arrêt d'appel.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 726 230mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM (CFI, 27 October 2025) cited in this record
- OrthoApnea v *** (CFI, 2 May 2025) cited in this record
- Roche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care Europe (CFI, ACT_831/2025, 29 April 2025) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 726 230 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM (CFI, 27 October 2025) · AWM v Progress Maschinen & Automatio (CFI, 8 April 2024) · A v Progress Maschinen & Automation (CFI, 4 December 2023) · Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM (CFI, 25 September 2023) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.