LS 9 v Bellissa HAAS (CFI, 27 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a Rule 105 RoP order of 27 May 2026, made after the interim conference of 13 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_860/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Central Division, in LS 9 GmbH’s revocation action against Bellissa HAAS GmbH’s EP 2223589, prepared the oral hearing set for 9 July 2026 and gave a provisional view on several points. The remarks on the standing of businesses under Art. 47(6) UPCA deserve attention, although they do not bind the panel.

Question

Must a commercial company show that it is « concerned » by the patent in order to bring a revocation action, and is the action exposed to a lis pendens objection in view of the infringement proceedings pending before the Mannheim Local Division?

Decision

On the panel’s provisional view, the concept of a person concerned in Art. 47(6) UPCA may be read broadly: commercially active undertakings would in principle be concerned, with a specific showing required only from private individuals, Art. 27(a) UPCA is relied on in support, and Rule 44 RoP, unlike Rules 61 and 63 RoP on declarations of non-infringement, requires no statement on the point. Lis pendens would require the claimant to be a straw man for the counterclaim defendant in Mannheim, which the panel does not see at this stage. The value of the dispute could follow that set in the Mannheim infringement action, unless a departure is justified. The late-filed citations D6 to D8 and new attacks on dependent claims would not be considered. The order sets deadlines on the value of the dispute and costs, and for a table matching grounds for revocation to requests, without new submissions.

Key points for practice

• The provisional view takes a broad approach to the standing of businesses to seek revocation, with no specific interest to be shown.
• Practical point: prior art and attacks that could have been included in the statement for revocation risk being disregarded if filed late.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 27(a), 47(6) and 73(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 44, 61, 63, 102.2, 103.1, 105.5, 106, 115, 118.5, 293, 333, 355.1(b), 361, 362 and 363

Case law cited

ALD v Nanoval, 26 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_999/2025), BRITA v Aquashield, Munich Local Division, 22 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_248/2024), Pari v Philips, Milan Central Division, 27 November 2025, VMR v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 29 December 2025

Related decisions

• LS 9 v Bellissa HAAS, 19 August 2026, later decision in the same proceedings.

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.