Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 16 January 2025)
| Date | 16 January 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application Rop 223 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_12/2025 |
| Registry reference | App_1182/2025 · ORD_2674/2025 · UPC_CoA_12/2025 |
| Parties | Bhagat Textile Engineers v. Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 16 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_12/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal, Emmanuel Gougé, rejected the application for suspensive effect filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers with its appeal against the Milan Local Division’s decision of 4 November 2024, which had found infringement of Oerlikon Textile’s EP 2 145 848 and granted an injunction, penalty payments, interim damages and costs. The order restates the exceptional nature of suspensive effect, even when limited to monetary orders.
Question
Should the appeal have suspensive effect, for the whole decision or only its financial provisions, on the strength of parallel revocation proceedings brought by a third party?
Decision
Suspensive effect is granted only where the circumstances justify an exception, taking into account in particular the stage of the revocation and appeal proceedings and the parties’ interests. The applicant must establish those circumstances (paragraphs 10 and 11). The parallel proceedings involve a third party, the alleged considerable doubts about validity were not explained and nothing was said about their stage (paragraphs 12 and 13). Bhagat had not counterclaimed for revocation at first instance or intervened in the parallel proceedings (paragraph 14), and its interests did not outweigh Oerlikon’s (paragraph 15). Given the need for speed, the application was decided without hearing the respondent (paragraph 16).
Key points for practice
- A defendant that did not challenge validity at first instance will struggle to rely, at the suspensive effect stage, on revocation proceedings brought by a third party.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 74(1)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 220.1, 223.2 and 223.3
- Case law cited
- Sibio v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024, Mala v Nokia, Court of Appeal, 21 June 2024
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
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.
Parties
- claimantBhagat Textile Engineers9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantOerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG18 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application Rop 223
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande d'effet suspensif est rejetée faute de circonstances exceptionnelles, la procédure en nullité invoquée émanant d'un tiers et n'étant ni expliquée ni située dans son avancement.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 145 848mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 19 August 2024) cited in this record
- Mala v Nokia (CoA, 21 June 2024) cited in this record
- Academy of Military Medical Sciences v Gilead Sciences (CoA, 4 August 2026) cites this decision
- Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display (CoA, 6 November 2025) cites this decision
- OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros GPA Innovative (CoA, 10 July 2025) cites this decision
- Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 6 June 2025) cites this decision
- Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CFI, 20 February 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.