Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v bellissa HAAS (CoA, 21 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 21 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_894/2025), the Court of Appeal held inadmissible Windhager’s appeal against the Mannheim Local Division’s decision of 12 September 2025, which had largely upheld bellissa HAAS’s infringement action on EP 2 223 589 and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. The statement of appeal filed in time was unsigned. The signed version was lodged only on 28 November 2025, after the period expired on 12 November 2025. The decision, with three headnotes, makes the signature a condition of valid filing that strong CMS authentication does not replace.

Question

Is an appeal validly lodged where the statement of appeal, filed within the two-month period, is signed only after that period has expired?

Decision

The two-month period in Art. 73(1) UPCA and Rule 224.1(a) RoP is a preclusive time limit (paragraphs 18 and 19). Rule 4.1 RoP requires every document to be signed, to ensure authenticity and integrity. Logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication does not replace it and an unsigned document is not validly filed (paragraphs 20 to 23). Compliance is the representative’s responsibility and is not part of the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP, the CMS requests to correct and the continuation of the proceedings did not cure the defect (paragraphs 24 to 28). The alleged technical difficulties were not established, the request for re-establishment was made outside the six-month limit of Rule 320.2 RoP, and a further period for written submissions was refused (paragraphs 29 to 32). Windhager bears the costs of the appeal (paragraph 33).

Key points for practice

• Every pleading, and the statement of appeal in particular, must be electronically signed before the time limit expires: a registry invitation to correct extends nothing (paragraphs 22 to 28).
• Re-establishment of rights must be requested within the six-month limit of Rule 320.2 RoP (paragraphs 30 and 31).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 73(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 4.1, 9.4, 220.1(a) and (b), 224.1(a), 225(c), 227, 228, 229.1, 229.2, 320.1 and 320.2

Case law cited

SharkNinja v SEB, Court of Appeal, 22 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_61/2026)

Related decisions

• Windhager v bellissa HAAS, 2 December 2025, earlier order in the same 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.