Siemens Healthcare v Hologic (CoA, 17 July 2026)

Date	17 July 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal
Case number(s)	UPC_CoA_94/2026
Registry reference	UPC-COA-0000094/2026
Parties	Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V. v. Hologic, Inc.

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 a decision of 17 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_94/2026), the Court of Appeal permitted Siemens Healthineers and its affiliates to withdraw an application for suspensive effect lodged by mistake in the appeal file concerning the counterclaim for revocation, the intended application having then been filed in the parallel infringement appeal (UPC_CoA_93/2026). It ordered reimbursement of only 50% of the fee and refused a full refund: the accidental nature of the filing is irrelevant. The rule is straightforward and applies to any filing made in error.

Question

Can a party withdrawing an application for suspensive effect filed by mistake obtain a full refund of the fee paid?

Decision

Withdrawal is permitted under Rule 265.1 RoP, applied mutatis mutandis, as no final decision has been given and Hologic does not object (paragraph 11). No costs decision is made, since withdrawing a Rule 223 RoP application does not end the main proceedings (paragraph 12). Rule 370.9(b) RoP, which provides a 50% refund on withdrawal before the close of the written procedure, applies mutatis mutandis, so the auxiliary request succeeds (paragraph 13). A full refund is refused: the reasons for withdrawal are irrelevant, exceptional circumstances being relevant under Rule 370.9(e) RoP only to reduce or deny a refund, and there is no gap to fill by analogy (paragraphs 14 to 17).

Key points for practice

Practical point: lodging an application for suspensive effect in the wrong file costs at least half the fee, prompt withdrawal only secures a 50% refund (paragraphs 13 and 16).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 223, 265, 370.9 and 370.11
Case law cited: Alpinestars v Dainese, Court of Appeal, 29 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_931/2025)

Related decisions

Hologic v Siemens Healthineers, 10 June 2026, Düsseldorf Local Division decision under appeal.
Siemens Healthineers v Hologic, 15 July 2026, parallel appeal in the infringement action (UPC_CoA_93/2026).

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_94/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantSiemens Healthcare SAS4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantSiemens Healthcare GmbH4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantSiemens Healthineers AG4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantSiemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantHologic, Inc.5 decisions in the corpus Follow 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: Appeal
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le retrait de la demande d'effet suspensif déposée par erreur est autorisé, avec remboursement de 50 % de la taxe, le remboursement intégral étant refusé.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Siemens Healthineers v Hologic (CoA, 15 July 2026) cited in this record
Hologic v Siemens Healthineers (CFI, 10 June 2026) cited in this record
Alpinestars v Dainese (CoA, 29 January 2026) 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.