Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere Innovations (CoA, 17 June 2025)

Date	17 June 2025
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_27069/2025 · ORD_28780/2025
Parties	Knaus Tabbert AG

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 an order of 17 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_365/2025 and UPC_CoA_413/2025, EP 3 356 109), the Court of Appeal (Judges Kalden, presiding, Simonsson, Rombach, rapporteur, and van der Burg and Wismeth, technically qualified judges) rejected Knaus Tabbert’s « Gegenvorstellung » (informal objection) under Rule 9.1 against the order of 21 May 2025 refusing suspensive effect for its appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s infringement decision of 10 April 2025. There is no informal remedy before the Court of Appeal for reopening an order that concludes a procedure.

Question

Can a party, relying on Rule 9.1 or Article 47 of the Charter, obtain a review by the Court of Appeal of the order refusing suspensive effect for its appeal?

Decision

The objection was inadmissible: Rule 9.1 allows procedural measures to be ordered in pending proceedings, not the amendment or setting aside of an order concluding the procedure (paragraph 12), Rule 335 covers procedural orders only (paragraph 13), and Article 47 of the Charter guarantees access to a court, not two levels of review (paragraph 14). Obiter, the finances of an insolvent third company say nothing about those of the proprietors, which could have been pleaded at first instance, and the order of 21 May 2025 held only that such facts cannot be raised for the first time in suspensive effect proceedings (Rule 222.2) (paragraphs 15 and 16).

Key points for practice

Arguments on the proprietor’s solvency and security for enforcement must be raised at first instance: they cannot be introduced later in a suspensive effect application or rescued by an informal objection.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 82(2)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.1, 222.2, 223, 262.2, 262A and 335
Other instruments: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, CJEU, 11 March 2015, Europäische Schule München, C-464/13 and C-465/13, paragraph 73

Related decisions

Knaus Tabbert, 21 May 2025, order refusing suspensive effect, challenged here.
Knaus Tabbert, 10 April 2025, Düsseldorf Local Division decision on the merits.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantKnaus Tabbert AG5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La contestation informelle de l'ordonnance refusant l'effet suspensif est irrecevable, la règle 9.1 ne permettant pas de modifier une ordonnance qui clôt la procédure et l'article 47 de la Charte ne garantissant pas un double degré de contrôle.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 356 109 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Knaus Tabbert v Erwin Härtwich (CoA, 21 May 2025) cited in this record
Erwin Härtwich v Knaus Tabbert (CFI, 10 April 2025) cited in this record
Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, UPC_CFI_846/2024, 7 July 2026) cites this decision

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 356 109`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere Innovations (CoA, 17 August 2026) · Knaus Tabbert v Erwin Härtwich (CoA, 21 May 2025) · Erwin Härtwich v Knaus Tabbert (CFI, 10 April 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.