Belkin v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, UPC_CoA_19/2025, 3 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

An offer within the meaning of Article 25(a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously and in economic terms: it is sufficient that the presentation enables third parties to make a contractual proposal, without contractual terms or a price being specified. Liability as an infringer extends to a person to whom a third party’s conduct is attributable as instigator, co-perpetrator or accessory. The position of managing director alone is not sufficient: conduct going beyond ordinary management functions is required, and knowledge presupposes knowledge both of the facts and of their unlawfulness, the director being entitled to rely on legal advice until the first instance judgment. Recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are the default rule, the burden of showing that they are disproportionate lying with the infringer.

Why it matters

This is one of the most comprehensive merits decisions handed down by the Court of Appeal, on the notion of offer, on the attribution of infringement and on corrective measures. It contains no reasoning on FRAND terms.

Practical point

For a director sued personally, the protection derived from legal advice ends with the first instance judgment. The defence strategy must take this into account from the warning letter onwards.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.