Applicant *** v Amycel (CoA, 16 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 16 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_935/2025), the Court of Appeal refused suspensive effect for the appeal against The Hague Local Division’s default decision of 21 October 2025, which found that the « Cayene » mushroom strain infringed Amycel’s EP 1 993 350. The appellant targeted the orders to inform customers by registered letter, to publish a notice on its website and to pay EUR 50,000 as an interim award of damages. The order confirms that general assertions of irreversibility or serious consequences are not enough.

Question

Do the alleged irreversibility of the information and publication measures, and uncertainty over repayment of an interim award, justify suspensive effect for the appeal under Art. 74(1) UPCA?

Decision

An appeal has no suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances make the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo prevail, for example where the decision is manifestly erroneous or the appeal would otherwise become devoid of purpose (paragraphs 10 and 11). The applicant must establish them (paragraph 12). The appellant did not show that the decision was manifestly erroneous. Even if the letters and the publication are not fully reversible, the appeal does not lose its purpose and Amycel’s interest in informing customers prevails (paragraph 13). A bare reference to « serious consequences » of payment, without further substantiation, is insufficient (paragraph 14). The court ruled without hearing Amycel, as Rule 223.3 requires a decision without delay (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

• A request for suspensive effect must show concretely a manifest error or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose. Partial irreversibility of a publication is not enough.
• The financial risk of paying an interim award must be quantified and substantiated.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 223, 275.3(b) and 355

Case law cited

Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 24 November 2025, Chint New Energy v Jingao, Court of Appeal, 20 May 2025

Related decisions

• Amycel v XXX, 21 October 2025, default decision of The Hague Local Division under appeal.

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.