Windhager Handelsgesellschaft v bellissa HAAS (CoA, 2 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 2 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_894/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal refused Windhager Handelsgesellschaft’s application for suspensive effect of its appeal against the Mannheim Local Division decision of 12 September 2025, which had largely upheld bellissa HAAS’s infringement action (EP 2 223 589) and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. The order confirms the high threshold for suspensive effect: neither the grounds of appeal, nor reputational harm from recall, nor a revocation action pending before another division is enough.

Question

Can an appellant found to infringe obtain suspensive effect by relying on its grounds of appeal, the reputational harm caused by recall and destruction, and a third party’s revocation action before the Central Division?

Decision

No. An appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court orders otherwise on a reasoned application. This is granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo outweighs the respondent’s interest (paragraph 9), in particular where the decision is manifestly wrong or enforcement would render the appeal largely pointless (paragraph 10). Windhager merely referred to its grounds of appeal, without showing that the first instance findings were manifestly untenable even on a summary assessment (paragraph 11). Its reputational harm was not shown to outweigh bellissa’s interest in stopping the infringement (paragraph 12). The revocation action pending before the Milan Central Division is irrelevant, its outcome being unknown (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an application for suspensive effect must show a manifest error in the decision under appeal or harm that would render the appeal pointless, merely referring to the grounds of appeal is not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 223 and 229

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation v Third Party, Court of Appeal, 6 November 2023, Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, Progress Maschinen & Automation, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024, ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024

Related decisions

• Windhager v bellissa HAAS, 12 September 2025, Mannheim Local Division decision under appeal.

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.