Speed Care Mineral v Teleflex Life Sciences II (CoA, 10 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 10 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_85/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismisses Speed Care Mineral’s request for discretionary review of the EUR 1 million value set for the counterclaim for revocation by the Hamburg Local Division in its decision of 27 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_685/2024 and UPC_CFI_157/2025, EP 2 077 811). The order confirms that the value in dispute, even when set in the operative part of a decision on the merits, can only be challenged through the leave to appeal route of Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP.

Question

Is the value in dispute set in a decision on the merits directly appealable, and does the division’s silence on a request for leave to appeal open the way to discretionary review?

Decision

The request is admissible but dismissed (paragraph 13). Setting the value is a procedural decision governed by Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, even when it appears in the operative part of a final decision (paragraphs 14 and 18), Rule 22.1 RoP concerns only infringement actions (paragraph 15). The division’s failure to respond within fifteen days amounts to a refusal of leave, so a request filed within the following fifteen days is admissible (paragraphs 21 and 22). Since the division took account of the size of the company and the short remaining life of the patent, setting the same value for both actions is not manifestly wrong, and no fundamental question of law was raised (paragraphs 28 and 29).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party challenging the value set in a decision on the merits must seek leave to appeal within fifteen days, then apply to the Court of Appeal within fifteen days of the refusal or of the division’s silence.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 22.1, 104(j), 105.5, 220.1(a), 220.2, 220.3, 333.1 and 370

Case law cited

AIM Sport v Supponor, Court of Appeal, 26 April 2024, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 4 February 2026, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2026, Motorola v Ericsson, Court of Appeal, 6 September 2024, Centripetal v Keysight, Court of Appeal, 1 September 2025, Microsoft v Suinno, Court of Appeal, 22 May 2025

Related decisions

• Teleflex Life Sciences II v Speed Care Mineral, 27 April 2026, decision on the merits of the Hamburg Local Division setting the contested value.

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.