Vectis IP v CPYou (CoA, UPC_CoA_118/2026, 5 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 August 2026, given in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_118/2026, UPC_CoA_119/2026 and UPC_CoA_120/2026, the Court of Appeal rejects the requests of Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. to stay the three sets of proceedings pending before The Hague Local Division (infringement of EP 3 079 153, counterclaim for revocation and counterclaim for the determination of a FRAND rate) and to grant suspensive effect. The appeal is directed at the order of 8 July 2026 which, on panel review, upheld the admissibility of the FRAND counterclaim against Vectis, the administrator of a patent pool that had intervened. A stay pending appeal remains exceptional.

Question

Should the first-instance proceedings be stayed, or the appeal given suspensive effect, pending the appeal against the order admitting a FRAND counterclaim against the intervener?

Decision

As a general rule, the main proceedings are not stayed pending an appeal against such an order, save in exceptional circumstances (paragraph 16). There are none here, since the Local Division will in any event have to address Acer’s FRAND defence (paragraph 17). A stay might be appropriate if the impugned order were manifestly erroneous (paragraph 18), that is, based on findings or legal considerations untenable on a summary assessment (paragraph 20), which is not the case. Rule 295(m) provides no separate basis (paragraph 23). Suspensive effect requires the appellant’s interest in the status quo to outweigh exceptionally the respondent’s interest in immediate enforcement, which is not shown (paragraph 24). Lastly, as the order of 1 May 2026 only declared the counterclaim against Vectis admissible, Dolby is not adversely affected. The court concludes that its appeal is inadmissible and that no stay is warranted between Acer and Dolby (paragraphs 25 to 28).

Key points for practice

• A stay of first-instance proceedings pending an appeal against a procedural order remains exceptional and, in practice, requires the impugned order to be manifestly wrong.
• Only a party adversely affected by a decision may appeal: a patentee against whom the admitted counterclaim is not directed cannot rely on it.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 2(g), 32(1)(a), 47, 73(2) and 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 20, 21.2, 220, 223, 295(m), 305, 313, 315.4, 316 and 333

Case law cited

MALA v Nokia, Court of Appeal, 21 June 2024, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025, NUC v Hurom, Court of Appeal, 27 March 2026, Xingi v Avient, Court of Appeal, 26 May 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.