Opens in a new tab

Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 16 January 2025)

Date16 January 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop 223
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_12/2025
Registry referenceApp_1182/2025 · ORD_2674/2025 · UPC_CoA_12/2025
PartiesBhagat 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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_12/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 145 848
False twist texturing machine
recorded proprietor: Oerlikon Textile GmbH and Co KG
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 4 November 2024) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 9 December 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CoA, 30 October 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 9 September 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 29 July 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 9 May 2025) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CFI, 20 February 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.