Chainzone Technology (Foshan) v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme (CoA, 26 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 May 2025, the Court of Appeal rejects the application for suspensive effect filed by Chainzone Technology (Foshan), intervening in support of Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions, against the Vienna Local Division’s decision of 15 January 2025, which had largely granted SWARCO FUTURIT’s action for infringement of EP 2 643 717 (information, destruction and recall, subject to penalty payments). The order confirms how demanding Art. 74 UPCA is: a challenge to claim construction is a matter for the appeal on the merits and does not amount to a manifest error.

Question

Do complaints of wrong construction of claim 1, misallocation of the burden of proof and breach of the right to be heard justify granting suspensive effect to the appeal?

Decision

The Court leaves open whether an intervener may apply for suspensive effect and the effect of the earlier rejection of Strabag’s application on 30 January 2025 (paragraphs 10 and 14). Suspensive effect requires exceptional circumstances, such as a manifestly wrong decision or enforcement that would largely render the appeal pointless (paragraphs 15 and 16), or a breach of fundamental procedural rights that may have affected the outcome (paragraph 17). Claim construction, proof of infringement and the temporal limits of the duty of information are for the appeal on the merits (paragraph 18). No breach of the right to be heard is shown, since the application does not specify, as Rule 223.2(b) requires, the pleadings and material relied on (paragraph 19). The application is rejected.

Key points for practice

• A dispute over claim construction is not enough to show the manifest error required for suspensive effect (paragraph 18).
• A complaint of breach of the right to be heard must be supported by precise references to the pleadings and must show its effect on the result (paragraph 19).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 223.1, 223.2(b), 315.4 and 352.1

Case law cited

Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, Ocado v third party, Court of Appeal, 6 November 2023, Progress Maschinen & Automation, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024, ICPillar, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, Sibio v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024.

Related decisions

• SWARCO FUTURIT v Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions, 15 January 2025, Vienna Local Division decision under appeal.
• Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions v SWARCO FUTURIT, 27 November 2025, later Court of Appeal decision in the same case.

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.