Applicant *** v Amycel (CoA, 24 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 24 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_935/2025), the Court of Appeal declares inadmissible the second application for suspensive effect filed by the appellant, the defendant found liable by default by The Hague Local Division on 21 October 2025 for infringing Amycel’s EP 1 993 350. A first application had been rejected on 16 January 2026. The Court applies to suspensive effect the requirement to set out one’s full case from the outset.

Question

May a party renew an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP after a first application has been rejected, relying on arguments already made or that could have been made?

Decision

An appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise on a reasoned request (Art. 74(1) UPCA), and the application must set out its reasons and the facts, evidence and arguments relied on (Rule 223.2 RoP) (paragraph 14). The principle that parties must set out their full case early in the proceedings applies to applications for suspensive effect: a later application is inadmissible unless it rests on submissions that could not reasonably have been made earlier (paragraph 15). The arguments in the second application were already in the first or could have been (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an application for suspensive effect must be complete when filed, a rejection cannot be cured by a fresh application without genuinely new material.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble, paragraph 7, and Rules 223, 223.2, 275.3(b) and 355

Related decisions

• Applicant v Amycel, 16 January 2026, order rejecting the first application for suspensive effect.

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.