AIM Sport Development v Supponor Italia (CoA, 26 April 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_500/2023), the Court of Appeal held admissible AIM Sport Development’s appeal against the Helsinki Local Division’s rejection of its application for provisional measures against five Supponor companies (EP 3 295 663), although it was lodged within two months rather than within the applicable 15 days. The decision of 20 October 2023, which dismissed both the infringement action and the application for provisional measures for lack of UPC jurisdiction, stated a single two-month appeal period. The Court found an excusable error, while warning that the outcome may be different in future cases.

Question

What time limit applies to an appeal against the rejection of an application for provisional measures, and may an appeal lodged out of time in reliance on incorrect information from the court be admissible?

Decision

Being distinct from the main action (Article 32(1)(a) and (c) UPCA), provisional measures proceedings do not end in a final decision when the request is denied, but in an order (paragraphs 8 to 10). Rule 220.1(c) RoP must be read as referring to orders on the applications mentioned, to avoid different periods depending on the outcome. The period is therefore 15 days (Rule 224.1(b) RoP) (paragraphs 10 and 11). The Local Division should have issued a separate order (paragraphs 13 to 15). The appeal period is mandatory and examined of the Court’s own motion (paragraph 17), but an excusable error may, in exceptional circumstances, justify a derogation: the incomplete information given by the Local Division, together with the ambiguous wording of Rule 220.1(c) RoP and Article 62 UPCA, led AIM to rely on the two-month period (paragraphs 18 to 21). For equality of arms, Supponor has three months for its statement of response and any cross-appeal (paragraph 22).

Key points for practice

• An appeal against an order on provisional measures, whether granting or refusing them, must be lodged within 15 days (paragraphs 10 and 11).
• An excusable error caused by incorrect information from the court saved this appeal, as an exception (paragraphs 18 to 21).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(a) and (c), 60, 61, 62 and 73(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(a), 19 to 21, 220.1(a) and (c), 224.1(a) and (b), 235.1 and 320

Case law cited

No UPC decision, the Court relies on case law of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on excusable error.

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.