Dainese v Alpinestars (CoA, 10 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 September 2026 (UPC_CoA_97/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal rejected the request by Alpinestars, Alpinestars Research and Motocard Bike under Rule 361 RoP to declare manifestly inadmissible Dainese’s appeal against the Milan Local Division’s decision of 21 April 2026 (EP 4 072 364). The court fees had been paid after the period for appeal had expired, but within the fourteen-day period opened by the Registry’s invitation. The order settles the consequences of late payment of appeal fees.

Question

Is an appeal inadmissible where the court fees are paid after the two-month period for appeal has expired but within the period set by the Registry?

Decision

Rule 15.2 RoP, applicable by virtue of Rule 228 RoP, only means that the appeal is not deemed lodged without payment, without requiring payment before the period for appeal expires. The Rules allow a further fourteen days, and the appeal is deemed not lodged under Rule 229.4 RoP only if the fees are not paid within that period (paragraphs 14 and 15). Payment is deemed made on the date of the transfer order, provided the funds are received (paragraph 17). The appeal, lodged on 19 June 2026 before the 22 June deadline, and the transfer order given on 29 June, within the period opened on 26 June, were in time (paragraphs 18 to 21). The requests for interim costs of EUR 25,000 were rejected, since such an award can be made only in a final decision or order (paragraph 22).

Key points for practice

• Failure to pay the fees by the end of the period for appeal does not make the appeal inadmissible if payment is made within fourteen days of the Registry’s invitation.
• Practical point: keep proof of the date of the transfer order, which determines the date of payment.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 70(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 15.2, 16.3(b), 27.2(b), 224.1, 228, 229, 333.1, 361 and 371

Case law cited

Microsoft v Suinno, Court of Appeal, 21 August 2024, NJOY v VMR, Court of Appeal, 1 April 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 23 June 2025.

Related decisions

• Dainese v Alpinestars, 21 April 2026, Milan 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.