Hybridgenerator v HGSystem (CoA, UPC_CoA_171/2026, 29 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 29 October 2026 (UPC_CoA_169/2026 to UPC_CoA_172/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed Hybridgenerator’s application for suspensive effect of its appeal against the costs decision of the Copenhagen Local Division of 17 September 2026, which ordered it to pay EUR 133,600 to the defendants.

Facts and procedure

Hybridgenerator’s EP 4 238 202 was revoked and the infringement action dismissed by the Copenhagen Local Division on 29 May 2026; Hybridgenerator appealed that decision on 27 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_124/2026 and UPC_CoA_125/2026). In the costs proceedings (Rules 150 et seq. RoP), the judge-rapporteur set at EUR 133,600 the amounts due to the three defendants for the infringement action, the counterclaim and the withdrawn application for provisional measures, each party bearing its own costs for the preservation of evidence. Payment was due by 1 October 2026.

On 30 September 2026 Hybridgenerator applied for leave to appeal (Rule 221.3 RoP) and for suspensive effect; it only cured the deficiencies, including payment of fees, on 12 October 2026, and paid nothing.

Question

Should an appeal against a costs decision have suspensive effect where enforcement would require repayment by several recipients if the decision is set aside?

Decision

The judge recalls that Article 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223.5 RoP do not preclude an application for suspensive effect against an order under Rule 221.3 RoP, but that it is only granted in exceptional circumstances, to be shown by the applicant, in particular where the appeal would otherwise be devoid of purpose.

For the preservation of evidence, nothing is payable, so the request fails. For the rest, any reversal could be remedied by repayment; the number of recipients is not enough, and no inability to repay is alleged. The applicant’s delay in seeking suspensive effect and curing its application, while ignoring the payment deadline, also weighs against it.

Key points for practice

• Suspensive effect remains exceptional, including for costs decisions.
• Where repayment is possible, a money order will in principle not be suspended.
• The applicant’s procedural conduct (delay, non-payment) enters the balance of interests.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Article 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 221.3, 223.4 and 223.5

Case law cited

ICPillar v ARM (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_301/2024, 19 June 2024), AMMS v Gilead (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_121/2026, 4 August 2026), Ocado v Autostore (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_407/2023, 6 November 2023), Chint v Jingao (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_430/2025, 20 May 2025).

Related decisions

• Copenhagen Local Division, 29 May 2026, UPC_CFI_560/2024 and UPC_CFI_89/2025, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem: merits decision revoking EP 4 238 202.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 1 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.