NUNA International v CYBEX (CoA, 21 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_135/2026), the Court of Appeal dismissed the application by Nuna International and Allison for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Hamburg Local Division’s provisional measures order of 10 August 2026, granted to Cybex on EP 4 242 056 (a child seat system). In the indirect infringement part of the order, the division had added an « insbesondere ohne » clause requiring disclaimers that Cybex had not requested. The Court of Appeal accepted that this was a manifest error, but held that suspensive effect could only cover that distinct part, and that Cybex’s irrevocable waiver of enforcement removed the appellants’ interest.

Question

Does a manifest error affecting only part of an order justify suspensive effect of the appeal for the whole order, and what is the effect of the respondent’s waiver of enforcement of that part?

Decision

By granting more than was requested, the division breached the principle of party disposition in Art. 76(1) UPCA, whatever its intention (paragraphs 28 to 32). Suspensive effect may be limited to a distinct part of the order, as Rule 223 RoP allows (paragraphs 33 to 38). The finding of infringement and the disclaimer actually requested are distinct from the added clause: suspensive effect was refused for the whole order and for the entire indirect infringement part (paragraphs 44 to 49). Cybex’s waiver, specific, unconditional and irrevocable, removed the need for legal protection on the most subsidiary request, and a wish for public rehabilitation creates no separate interest (paragraphs 50 to 54).

Key points for practice

• A decision granting more than was sought is a manifest error, but suspensive effect remains confined to the flawed part (paragraphs 28 to 36).
• A respondent can defeat an application for suspensive effect by a specific, unconditional and irrevocable waiver of enforcement of the contested part (paragraphs 50 to 53).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 74(1) and 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206.1 and 223

Other provisions

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47 (relied on by the appellants)

Case law cited

Sibio v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_388/2024), Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere, Court of Appeal, 21 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_365/2025), Windhager v bellissa, Court of Appeal, 2 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_894/2025), Alpina v Cup&Cino, Court of Appeal, 24 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_44/2026), Siemens v Hologic, Court of Appeal, 15 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_93/2026), Magna v Valeo, Court of Appeal, 11 December 2024 (UPC_CoA_719/2024), Xingi v Avient, Court of Appeal, 26 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_76/2026), Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_549/2024), PMA v AWM, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_177/2024)

Related decisions

• Cybex v Nuna International, 10 August 2026, the provisional measures order under appeal.

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.