Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 29 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 29 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_549/2024), the Court of Appeal granted partial suspensive effect to Belkin’s appeal against the Munich Local Division’s decision on the merits of 13 September 2024 finding infringement of Philips’ EP 2 867 997. Suspensive effect applies only to the three Belkin directors held liable as intermediaries. The other requests, including the alternative requests for security, were rejected. The order sets a clear limit on personal liability of directors under Article 63 UPCA.

Question

Should the appeal have suspensive effect, in whole or in part, where the impugned decision holds the infringing company’s directors liable as intermediaries and the appellant alleges a breach of the right to be heard?

Decision

Suspensive effect requires a manifestly erroneous decision or enforcement that would render the appeal largely pointless, judged on the reasoning given at first instance (paragraphs 58 to 60). A director represents the company: the company is not a third party whose services the director uses within Article 63(1), second sentence, UPCA and Article 11 of Directive 2004/48, so the office alone cannot found intermediary liability. The error is manifest and the directors’ interest in preserving the status quo prevails, including as regards costs and publication (paragraphs 63 to 68). No breach of procedural rights was shown, Belkin having had the speaking time set under Rule 113.1 RoP (paragraphs 69 and 70). The Court left open whether suspensive effect may be made subject to security, there being no exceptional circumstances (paragraphs 71 to 73).

Key points for practice

• An injunction against directors based solely on their office, under Article 63 UPCA, is exposed to suspension on appeal.
• Practical point: an application for suspensive effect should target precisely the parts of the decision that are manifestly wrong, as the Court may grant only partial suspension.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 63(1) and 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 102.1, 113.1, 113.3, 223.1, 223.2 and 352.1

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 11

Case law cited

Ocado, Court of Appeal, 6 November 2023, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024, UPC_CoA_177/2024, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, UPC_CoA_301/2024, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024, UPC_CoA_388/2024

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.