Belkin International v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, 16 April 2026)

Date	16 April 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal RoP220.1
Case number(s)	UPC_CoA_54/2026
Registry reference	UPC-COA-0000054/2026PR · UPC-COA-0000054/2026
Parties	Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.

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

By order of 16 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_54/2026), the Court of Appeal rejects the requests of Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V. and Belkin Limited for an extension of the time limit to provide the information required by Rule 225(e) or, in the alternative, for an invitation to correct deficiencies under Rule 229.2. Belkin had appealed on 13 April 2026 against the decision issued without reasons by the Munich Local Division on 11 February 2026 in the infringement action brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. (EP 2 867 997). The order confirms that the time limit for appeal runs only from service of a reasoned decision.

Question

Can the time limit for appeal be extended, in whole or in part, where the decision under appeal was issued without reasons?

Decision

Rule 9.4 bars any extension of the time limit for the Statement of appeal (paragraph 6). The two-month period in Rule 224.1(a) starts to run only on service of a reasoned decision, since Article 77(1) UPCA requires decisions to be reasoned (paragraph 7). There is therefore no reason to extend a time limit that has not yet begun, even partially for certain requirements of the appeal (paragraph 8), nor to invite Belkin to correct its statement (paragraph 9). Belkin is to notify the Registry before lodging a supplementary Statement of appeal.

Key points for practice

Against a decision issued without reasons, the Rule 224.1(a) period runs only from service of the reasoned decision, even where an appeal has already been lodged (paragraphs 7 and 8).
A request for an extension serves no purpose while the time limit has not started to run (paragraph 8).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 77(1)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.3, 9.4, 220.1, 224.1, 225 and 229.2
Case law cited: Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 12 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_328/2024).

Related decisions

Koninklijke Philips v Belkin International, 11 February 2026, Munich Local Division decision 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.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.

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

UPC_CoA_54/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

defendantKoninklijke Philips N.V.28 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantBelkin International Inc.normalised name: Belkin International, Inc.12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantBelkin B.V.Follow this party
claimantBelkin Limited8 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: Appeal RoP220.1
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d’appel rejette les demandes de Belkin : le délai d’appel contre une décision rendue sans motifs ne court pas encore, de sorte qu’il n’y a rien à proroger ni à régulariser.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 867 997 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Koninklijke Philips v Belkin International (CFI, 11 February 2026) cited in this record
Ballinno v Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 12 July 2024) cited in this record

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.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 867 997` Wireless inductive power transfer recorded proprietor: Koninklijke Philips NV	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Koninklijke Philips v Belkin International (CFI, 11 February 2026) · Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CFI, 13 September 2024) · Anker Innovations Deutschland v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, 27 May 2026) · Belkin v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, 30 May 2025) · Koninklijke Philips v Belkin International (CFI, 18 December 2024) · Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 29 October 2024) · Hurtel v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, 30 September 2026) · Hurtel v Belkin (CoA, 30 September 2026)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.