Applicant *** (CoA, UPC_CoA_614/2025, 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_614/2025 |
| Registry reference | APL_32076/2025 · ORD_33656/2025 · UPC_CoA_614/2025 |
| 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_614/2025), the President of the Court of Appeal rejected a petition by a European patent attorney, whose name is redacted, against the Registrar’s decision of 2 June 2025 refusing his entry on the list of representatives. His request of 18 April 2025 relied on a Politecnico di Milano certificate dated 1 March 2024, which could count only during the one-year transitional period that ended on 3 June 2024. The headnote states that this transitional period is, as a rule, not open to extension or exception.
Question
Can a qualification under Rule 12.1(a) of the Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate support a request filed after the transitional period, and does an IT failure justify re-establishment?
Decision
No. Entry on the EPO list is not enough (paragraphs 7 and 8). The course, completed before its accreditation on 19 July 2024, falls only within the « other qualifications » of Rule 12.1(a)(xii), valid during the transitional period alone, which runs from the entry into force of the UPCA and not from when the certificate was obtained (paragraphs 9 to 14). As there is no filing deadline the request is admissible, but it is well founded only if made within that period (paragraphs 15 and 16). The scheme does not breach equality or proportionality (paragraph 17). Re-establishment is ruled out: the rules provide for none, an IT failure without proper backup does not show all due care, and the six-month limit has in any event passed (paragraphs 19 to 23).
Key points for practice
- An IT failure without adequate backup does not show the due care that any re-establishment would require.
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, 12, 13 and 14
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 : la qualification invoquée ne valait que pendant la période transitoire, expirée avant la demande, et la panne informatique ne justifie aucune restitution.
- 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.