Siemens Healthineers v Hologic (CoA, 15 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 15 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_93/2026, EP 2 352 431), the Court of Appeal rejected the application by Siemens Healthineers and its affiliates for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision of 10 June 2026, which found infringement in Hologic’s favour and dismissed their counterclaim for revocation. Neither the construction of feature 4.1, nor the reasoning, nor the injunction against Appellants 3 and 4 is manifestly wrong. The order usefully clarifies how the adequacy of reasons is reviewed at the suspensive effect stage.

Question

Do a debatable claim construction, allegedly thin reasoning or an injunction covering acts not yet committed justify suspensive effect of the appeal under Art. 74(1) UPCA?

Decision

Suspensive effect is the exception: it requires a manifestly erroneous decision, i.e. one that is untenable on a summary assessment, or a breach of procedural rights that may have affected the outcome, the burden lying on the appellant (paragraphs 16 to 19). The Local Division stated the correct principles and explained its functional, description-based reading of feature 4.1, disagreement with that reading is a matter for the appeal (paragraphs 20 to 23). The right to be heard requires the substance of essential submissions to be addressed, not every argument, and the decision meets Arts 76(2) and 77(1) UPCA and Art. 6 ECHR (paragraphs 24 to 29). A past infringement is in principle enough to show a risk of further acts, including manufacture (paragraphs 30 to 32).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: relying on inadequate reasons to obtain suspensive effect requires showing that a central argument was ignored, a brief treatment of the arguments is not enough (paragraphs 27 and 28).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 74(1), 76(2) and 77(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rule 350.4

European Convention on Human Rights

Art. 6

Case law cited

Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_549/2024), Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024 (UPC_CoA_4/2024), Progress Maschinen & Automation, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_177/2024), Chint v Jingao, Court of Appeal, 20 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_430/2025), Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere, Court of Appeal, 21 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_365/2025), Swarco v Strabag, Court of Appeal, 26 May 2025, RiVOLUTiON v Cilag, Court of Appeal, 15 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_737/2025), Windhager v Bellissa Haas, Court of Appeal, 2 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_894/2025), AMYCELL, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_935/2025), Dyson v Dreame, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025), Alpina v CUP&CINO, Court of Appeal, 24 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_44/2026), La Siddhi v Athena, Court of Appeal, 14 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_48/2026), Polytechnik v Dall, Court of Appeal, 24 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_57/2026), Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_882/2025), ECtHR, 24 May 2005, Buzescu v Romania, no. 61302/00

Related decisions

• Hologic v Siemens Healthineers, 10 June 2026, Düsseldorf Local Division decision under appeal.
• Siemens Healthcare v Hologic, 17 July 2026, withdrawal of the suspensive effect application filed by mistake in the revocation appeal (UPC_CoA_94/2026).

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.