Opens in a new tab

AWM v Progress Maschinen & Automation (CFI, 10 February 2026)

Date10 February 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionApplication For Costs
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1738/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_1738/2025
PartiesSCHNELL 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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

  • UPC_CFI_1738/2025 official number

Follow this case

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 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

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 2 726 230Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
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.