Opens in a new tab

Knaus Tabbert v Erwin Härtwich (CoA, 21 May 2025)

Date21 May 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop 223
Registry referenceApp_21951/2025 · ORD_24333/2025
PartiesKnaus Tabbert AG v. Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH

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 21 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_365/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert’s requests for suspensive effect of its appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision of 10 April 2025, which had found infringement of EP 3 356 109 (caravan frames) and dismissed its counterclaim for revocation. The order matters for enforcement security: its absence is not a manifest error, and the claimant’s financial position must be raised at first instance.

Question

Does enforcement of a merits decision granted without security (Art. 82(2) UPCA) justify suspensive effect of the appeal or, at least, enforcement conditional on security?

Decision

The Court restated that suspensive effect remains exceptional: it requires a manifestly erroneous decision, an appeal rendered largely pointless by enforcement, or a breach of fundamental procedural rights (paragraphs 17 to 19). Security lies within the court’s discretion and is not required in every case, nor by Art. 9(6) of Directive 2004/48 (paragraphs 22 to 24), Knaus Tabbert, aware of the patent, took a calculated risk (paragraph 25). Yellow Sphere’s financial position had not been raised at first instance (paragraph 30). Damages are not enforceable until quantified (paragraph 33). A reference to the CJEU was refused (paragraph 34).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 74(1) and 82(2)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 102.1, 125.1, 222.2 and 223
Directive 2004/48/EC
Art. 9(6)
Case law cited
Meril v Edwards, 18 January 2024, Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care, 19 August 2024, Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, 29 October 2024, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025

Related decisions

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

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 cour d'appel rejette la demande d'effet suspensif et les demandes subsidiaires de garantie, de sursis et de renvoi préjudiciel : l'absence de garantie d'exécution n'est pas une erreur manifeste.
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 3 356 109Mentioned 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 Yellow Sphere Innovations (CoA, 17 June 2025) · Erwin Härtwich v Knaus Tabbert (CFI, 10 April 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.