Applicant v Registrar (CoA, 16 July 2026)

Date	16 July 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Petition for review of Registrar's decision
Registry reference	N/A
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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 16 July 2026, the President of the Court of Appeal rejected an anonymised applicant’s petition for review of the Registrar’s decision of 26 January 2026 refusing to confirm his registration on the list of representatives entitled under Art. 48(3) UPCA. The applicant claimed to have been registered in the former case management system (CMS). With no clear and convincing evidence that an application for registration had been filed in the CMS, the petition failed. The order reminds practitioners that only a registration recorded in the CMS, evidenced by its system-generated confirmation, counts.

Question

What must a person show when seeking confirmation of a registration on the list of representatives that he says he obtained earlier?

Decision

The petition, lodged within the one-month period of Rule 18 of the Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate (EPLC Rules), is admissible but unfounded (paragraph 1). An application for confirmation, not provided for in those rules, is dealt with by applying Rules 13 et seq. and 17 et seq. EPLC Rules mutatis mutandis (paragraphs 2 and 3). The applicant must show clearly and convincingly that an application was filed in the CMS, filing there being mandatory under Rule 4 RoP, and must submit all evidence available to him, since only the Registrar can search the CMS (paragraphs 4 to 6). The 2023 exchanges with the Service Desk show no filing, no system-generated confirmation was produced and the Registrar found no record of any application (paragraphs 7 to 10).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a representative who believes he is registered should keep the CMS-generated confirmation, emails with the Service Desk do not prove that an application for registration was filed (paragraphs 7 and 8).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 48(3)
Rules of Procedure: Rule 4
Other provisions: EPLC Rules, Rules 12(1)(a)(ix), 13 et seq., 14(2), 17 et seq., 18 and 19.2

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

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantApplicant ***11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Petition for review of Registrar's decision
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le recours contre la décision du greffier du 26 janvier 2026 est rejeté, le demandeur n'établissant pas clairement le dépôt antérieur d'une demande d'inscription dans le CMS.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

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.

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.