Applicant *** (CoA, UPC_CoA_347/2025, 24 July 2025)
| Date | 24 July 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Petition for review of Registrar's decision |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_347/2025 |
| Registry reference | APL_18313/2025 · ORD_33654/2025 · UPC_CoA_347/2025 |
| Parties | Applicant *** |
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
By an order of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_347/2025), the President of the Court of Appeal rejected as unfounded a petition by an applicant, whose name is redacted, against the Registrar’s decision of 20 March 2025 refusing his entry on the list of representatives. The holder of a CEIPI diploma issued in 2022, he applied only on 21 February 2025, after the one-year transitional period had ended (3 June 2024), relying on sick leave following an accident. The order confirms how strictly the transitional period applies, even where there is a personal impediment.
Question
Does the one-year period in Rule 12.1 of the Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate breach equality and proportionality, and is re-establishment of rights available?
Decision
No on both counts. The course, not accredited under Rule 2, is listed only in Rule 12.1(a)(i), which applied for one year from the entry into force of the UPCA (paragraphs 9 to 12), Italian national rules on registration deadlines are irrelevant (paragraph 13). This time-limited exception to the accreditation requirement cannot be extended beyond its wording (paragraph 14) and does not breach equality or proportionality, since the States may limit its duration and scope (paragraphs 15 and 16), the applicant can still obtain the European certificate or rely on a law degree (paragraph 17). Re-establishment is ruled out: the applicable rules provide for none, Rule 320 RoP may not apply, all due care was not shown and the six-month limit would in any case be missed (paragraphs 18 to 22).
Key points for practice
- A personal impediment during part of the transitional period does not allow an entry requested after the period has expired.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 48(2)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 286.2 and 320
- European Patent Convention
- Art. 134
- Other provisions
- Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate and other appropriate qualifications, Rules 2, 8.1, 11 and 12.1
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
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
- claimantApplicant ***11 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Petition for review of Registrar's decision
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le recours est rejeté comme mal fondé : la période transitoire d'un an de la règle 12.1 est conforme à l'égalité et à la proportionnalité, et aucune restitution n'est possible.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
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.