Optopol Technology v Topcon (CoA, 28 April 2026)

Date	28 April 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Case number(s)	UPC_CoA_56/2026
Registry reference	UPC-COA-0000056/2026
Parties	Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v. Topcon Corporation

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

In an order of 28 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_56/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismisses Optopol’s request for discretionary review of the Düsseldorf Local Division’s order of 1 April 2026. That order had refused Topcon’s application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended, under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, the time limit for its Reply, filed one week late, thereby setting aside the default decision sought. The order applies the Angelalign case law on excusable human error.

Question

Is an order retroactively extending a missed time limit, instead of granting re-establishment of rights or a default decision, manifestly wrong or does it raise a fundamental question of law warranting review under Rule 220.3 RoP?

Decision

The request is admissible but refused (paragraph 14). As in Angelalign, the division could treat the application for re-establishment as a request for extension under Rule 9.3(a), given the alternative request (paragraphs 18 and 19). It reasonably found an excusable human error by the representatives’ assistant, in light of the firm’s deadline control system (paragraph 20). The timing of the request could be excused, since Angelalign had not yet been issued, and the extension caused no delay, the hearing of 15 December 2026 being unaffected (paragraphs 21 and 22). Not expressly addressing the bad faith arguments does not make the order manifestly wrong (paragraph 23).

Key points for practice

Practical point: where a time limit is missed, a party should promptly request, at least in the alternative, an extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, documenting its deadline control system.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.2, 9.3(a), 29(a), 220.2, 220.3, 220.4 and 320
Case law cited: Motorola v Ericsson, Court of Appeal, 6 September 2024, Centripetal v Keysight, Court of Appeal, 1 September 2025, Angelalign v Angel Technology, Court of Appeal, 10 March 2026

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

UPC_CoA_56/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantOptopol Technology Sp. z o.oFollow this party
defendantTopcon CorporationFollow 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: Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le réexamen discrétionnaire est refusé : la prorogation rétroactive du délai de réplique pour erreur humaine excusable n'est ni manifestement erronée ni porteuse d'une question de droit fondamentale.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Angelalign France Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 10 March 2026) cited in this record
Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CoA, 1 September 2025) cited in this record
Motorola Mobility v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 6 September 2024) cited in this record

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.

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.