On 17 August 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order in UPC-CoA-40/2026 and UPC-CoA-123/2026 concerning Emboline’s request for review under R. 333 RoP and AorticLab’s application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. Emboline had brought an infringement action concerning EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab, which filed a counterclaim for revocation and later made it dependent on a finding of infringement by the Court. The Local Division Munich found no infringement, held that the condition for deciding the counterclaim was not fulfilled, did not decide the counterclaim on its substance, and ordered AorticLab to bear the related costs.

The Court held that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are separate actions, so the condition is inter-procedural and a separate appeal is required rather than a cross-appeal in the infringement proceedings. It held that making the counterclaim conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible and that R. 263.3 RoP applies by analogy when the request is an unconditional limitation. The Court held that non-fulfilment of the condition does not make the revocation action cease to exist, not filed, or withdrawn, but means that the Court need not decide the counterclaim on its substance and must declare that the condition was not fulfilled and decide costs.

Where the condition refers to a finding of infringement by “the Court”, the Court held that this ordinarily refers to both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, so the conditional counterclaim remains pending during the appeal period. If the condition is fulfilled by a finding of infringement on appeal, the Court of Appeal should as a rule decide the counterclaim itself rather than refer it back to the Court of First Instance.

The Court re-established AorticLab’s right to lodge its appeal documents, declared those documents admissible, rejected Emboline’s requested review, and set the period for Emboline’s statement of response at two months after filing of the appeal documents.

","multilingual_admin_summary",{"_83":342,"_81":343},"ai_translation_metadata",{"_318":319,"_320":321,"_322":323},"apports",[170,171,172,173,174,175],"detail_page_url","https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/184048","source_version","4.0.0-enhanced","last_updated_at","2026-09-19T21:49:06.778000Z",{"_118":301,"_177":302,"_179":303,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_15":304,"_186":305,"_17":306,"_189":-5,"_191":307,"_193":267,"_195":308,"_197":198,"_199":309,"_201":233,"_203":204,"_205":310},{"_118":279,"_177":280,"_179":281,"_181":282,"_183":283,"_15":284,"_186":285,"_17":286,"_189":287,"_191":288,"_193":289,"_195":290,"_197":198,"_199":291,"_201":233,"_203":292,"_205":293},{"_118":259,"_177":260,"_179":261,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_15":262,"_186":263,"_17":264,"_189":265,"_191":266,"_193":267,"_195":268,"_197":198,"_199":269,"_201":233,"_203":204,"_205":270},{"_118":242,"_177":243,"_179":244,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_15":245,"_186":246,"_17":247,"_189":248,"_191":249,"_193":230,"_195":250,"_197":198,"_199":251,"_201":233,"_203":204,"_205":252},{"_118":222,"_177":223,"_179":224,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_15":225,"_186":226,"_17":227,"_189":228,"_191":229,"_193":230,"_195":231,"_197":198,"_199":232,"_201":233,"_203":204,"_205":234},{"_118":176,"_177":178,"_179":180,"_181":182,"_183":184,"_15":185,"_186":187,"_17":188,"_189":190,"_191":192,"_193":194,"_195":196,"_197":198,"_199":200,"_201":202,"_203":204,"_205":206},"7712df81-1015-5101-bf4f-70da4f7b1679","instance_id","5b2203a1-ef8a-525d-8807-35dcd5faec4b","article_number","Article 75(1)","regulation","UPCA","document_type","upc_agreement","When a conditional revocation counterclaim becomes operative following a Court of Appeal finding of infringement, the Court of Appeal should as a rule decide the counterclaim rather than refer it back to the Court of First Instance.","citation","Page 4: 10. If the condition to which the counterclaim for revocation action is subjected is fulfilled due to a finding of infringement by the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal shall as a rule not refer the counterclaim back to the Court of First Instance, but shall decide on it, in accordance with Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.2(b) RoP, last sentence.” 7. The Court of Appeal also considered (para. 12) that “12.","The Court stated that, if the condition is fulfilled by a Court of Appeal finding of infringement, the Court of Appeal shall as a rule decide the revocation counterclaim in accordance with Article 75(1) UPCA and Rule 242.2(b) RoP, rather than refer it back to the Court of First Instance.","impact_sentence","The counterclaim can be decided in the appeal proceedings once the condition is fulfilled.","source_extract","10. If the condition to which the counterclaim for revocation action is subjected is fulfilled due to a finding of infringement by the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal shall as a rule not refer the counterclaim back to the Court of First Instance, but shall decide on it, in accordance with Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.2(b) RoP, last sentence.” 7. The Court of Appeal also considered (para. 12) that “12.","source_location","Page 4","source_evidence",[209],"grounding_status","verified","legal_anchor",[207,208],"confidence",0.96,"support_status","supported","support_reason","The citation expressly states that if the Court of Appeal finds infringement and thereby fulfils the condition, it shall as a rule decide the revocation counterclaim rather than refer it back, pursuant to Article 75(1) UPCA and Rule 242.2(b) RoP.","Article 75(1) UPCA","Rule 242.2(b) RoP",{"_210":211,"_212":213,"_214":108,"_215":216,"_217":192,"_218":219,"_220":211,"_221":213},"block_id","p0004-b004","page",4,"start_char","end_char",407,"quote","verification","verbatim","end_block_id","page_end","d8e99deb-4df7-5255-b919-201d3db6752a","720304f0-4590-56e8-a415-12144181f211","Article 2","Unless the party expressly indicates otherwise, a condition requiring a finding of infringement by “the Court” refers to both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal and therefore requires a final finding of infringement.","Page 8: 34. In addition, where a counterclaim for revocation is made conditional upon a finding of infringement by ‘the Court’, in the absence of an explicit indication by a party to the contrary (e.g. by explicitly referring to ‘the Court of First Instance’), ‘the Court’ must be understood as to refer to both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. According to Art. 2 UPCA, ‘the Court’ means the Unified Patent Court created by the Agreement and according to Art. 6 UPCA the Court shall comprise a Court of First Instance and a Court of Appeal. The condition of a finding of infringement by ‘the Court’, must thus be understood to mean a final finding of infringement, i.e. in case the infringement claimant appeals from a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance, a finding of infringement by the Court of Appeal. 35. Consequently, after a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance, the conditional counterclaim is still ‘pending’ for the duration of the appeal period and the decision may be appealed from, after which it becomes pending before the Court of Appeal.","The Court interpreted “the Court” by reference to the Unified Patent Court’s composition of a Court of First Instance and a Court of Appeal. It consequently treated the condition as fulfilled, after an appeal from first-instance non-infringement, only if the Court of Appeal finds infringement.","After first-instance non-infringement, the conditional counterclaim remains pending during the appeal period and may become pending before the Court of Appeal.","34. In addition, where a counterclaim for revocation is made conditional upon a finding of infringement by ‘the Court’, in the absence of an explicit indication by a party to the contrary (e.g. by explicitly referring to ‘the Court of First Instance’), ‘the Court’ must be understood as to refer to both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. According to Art. 2 UPCA, ‘the Court’ means the Unified Patent Court created by the Agreement and according to Art. 6 UPCA the Court shall comprise a Court of First Instance and a Court of Appeal. The condition of a finding of infringement by ‘the Court’, must thus be understood to mean a final finding of infringement, i.e. in case the infringement claimant appeals from a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance, a finding of infringement by the Court of Appeal. 35. Consequently, after a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance, the conditional counterclaim is still ‘pending’ for the duration of the appeal period and the decision may be appealed from, after which it becomes pending before the Court of Appeal.","Page 8",[237],[235,236],0.99,"The citation expressly interprets “the Court” as both the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal absent an indication to the contrary, treats the condition as requiring a final infringement finding, and states that the counterclaim remains pending during the appeal period and thereafter becomes pending before the Court of Appeal.","Article 2 UPCA","Article 6 UPCA",{"_210":238,"_212":239,"_214":108,"_215":240,"_217":229,"_218":219,"_220":241,"_221":239},"p0008-b011",8,1111,"p0008-b014","b16f160f-c406-58ca-ac06-70feb99f846e","a7ae8d7d-91da-57b7-8b26-feed9f041bf6","Article 69","Non-fulfilment of the condition limits the need for a merits decision on the revocation counterclaim but does not make the action cease to exist, not filed or withdrawn.","Page 8: 32. Contrary to Emboline’s argument, the non-fulfilment of the condition does not lead to the action ceasing to exist, being considered not-filed or being withdrawn. As considered above, since it is not the action itself, but rather the claims that are limited by the condition, the only consequence of non-fulfilment of the condition is that there is no need for the Court to decide on the substance of the counterclaim. It also does not lead to a situation where there is no decision at all. Indeed, the Court still needs to decide the action, i.e. declare that the condition is not fulfilled and issue a cost decision, as the LDM rightly did (in Emboline’s favour). Where the LDM stated that ‘no decision had to be made upon the counterclaim’, this is to be understood in the sense that the Court did not have to adjudicate the counterclaim in substance, since the LDM clearly rendered a decision. 33. The fact that a cost decision is rendered does not indicate that the LDM ‘disposed’ of the action, rather it decided pursuant to Art. 69 UPCA who shall have to bear the costs of the action, which – as in any action decided upon by the Court of First Instance – may be reversed by the Court of Appeal pursuant to R. 242.1 RoP.","The Court distinguished the limited need for adjudication from the existence of the action itself. If the condition is not fulfilled, the counterclaim need not be adjudicated in substance, but the action still requires a decision stating that the condition was not fulfilled and allocating costs.","The Court must still declare that the condition was not fulfilled and issue a cost decision, which does not dispose of or extinguish the action.","32. Contrary to Emboline’s argument, the non-fulfilment of the condition does not lead to the action ceasing to exist, being considered not-filed or being withdrawn. As considered above, since it is not the action itself, but rather the claims that are limited by the condition, the only consequence of non-fulfilment of the condition is that there is no need for the Court to decide on the substance of the counterclaim. It also does not lead to a situation where there is no decision at all. Indeed, the Court still needs to decide the action, i.e. declare that the condition is not fulfilled and issue a cost decision, as the LDM rightly did (in Emboline’s favour). Where the LDM stated that ‘no decision had to be made upon the counterclaim’, this is to be understood in the sense that the Court did not have to adjudicate the counterclaim in substance, since the LDM clearly rendered a decision. 33. The fact that a cost decision is rendered does not indicate that the LDM ‘disposed’ of the action, rather it decided pursuant to Art. 69 UPCA who shall have to bear the costs of the action, which – as in any action decided upon by the Court of First Instance – may be reversed by the Court of Appeal pursuant to R. 242.1 RoP.",[255],[253,254],"The citation expressly states that non-fulfilment does not cause the action to cease, become not filed, or be withdrawn; it removes the need for a merits decision while requiring a decision that the condition was not fulfilled and a cost decision. It also states that the cost decision does not dispose of the action and may be reversed under Rule 242.1 RoP.","Article 69 UPCA","Rule 242.1 RoP",{"_210":256,"_212":239,"_214":108,"_215":257,"_217":249,"_218":219,"_220":258,"_221":239},"p0008-b005",1230,"p0008-b010","c35e72b8-f951-53db-8ba7-2a23243182f2","cd183f61-65a3-5072-afc8-4148fd94b569","Article 32(1)","An infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation are separate actions, so a condition linking the counterclaim to a finding in the infringement action is inter-procedural and must be challenged by a separate appeal rather than a cross-appeal.","Page 6: This is, as Emboline rightly notes, for instance clear from the fact that they are separately mentioned in Art. 32(1) UPCA under (a) and (e) respectively, with the revocation action also mentioned as a separate action (under (d)); that the infringement action and counterclaim may be bifurcated (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA); and that a withdrawal of the infringement action has no effect on the counterclaim (R. 265.2 RoP). The possibility of lodging a separate revocation action does not render the possibility of lodging a counterclaim for revocation unnecessary, since other than in revocation proceedings, the procedural framework in relation to a counterclaim for revocation ensures that it is adjudicated alongside the infringement action. 19. The LDM referred to the condition of a finding of infringement as an intra-procedural condition. If the LDM intended to express therewith that it is a condition within the same action, then that would be incorrect, since a finding of infringement is made within the infringement action, which, as said, is an action different from the counterclaim for revocation proceedings. Making the counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is thus rather an ‘inter-procedural’ condition. 20. Whether a condition is ‘intra-procedural’ in the strict sense or ‘inter-procedural’ is relevant for the question of whether a cross-appeal may be lodged, which is possible if the condition is intra-procedural in the strict sense, or a separate appeal must be lodged, which is the case if the condition is inter-procedural, such as in this case (see also para. 48 below).","The Court based the distinction on the separate treatment of the actions, the possibility of bifurcation and the absence of effect of withdrawal of the infringement action on the counterclaim. It classified the condition as inter-procedural and stated that an inter-procedural condition requires a separate appeal.","A cross-appeal in the infringement proceedings cannot attack the decision in the separate revocation-counterclaim action, even if both decisions appear in one document.","This is, as Emboline rightly notes, for instance clear from the fact that they are separately mentioned in Art. 32(1) UPCA under (a) and (e) respectively, with the revocation action also mentioned as a separate action (under (d)); that the infringement action and counterclaim may be bifurcated (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA); and that a withdrawal of the infringement action has no effect on the counterclaim (R. 265.2 RoP). The possibility of lodging a separate revocation action does not render the possibility of lodging a counterclaim for revocation unnecessary, since other than in revocation proceedings, the procedural framework in relation to a counterclaim for revocation ensures that it is adjudicated alongside the infringement action. 19. The LDM referred to the condition of a finding of infringement as an intra-procedural condition. If the LDM intended to express therewith that it is a condition within the same action, then that would be incorrect, since a finding of infringement is made within the infringement action, which, as said, is an action different from the counterclaim for revocation proceedings. Making the counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is thus rather an ‘inter-procedural’ condition. 20. Whether a condition is ‘intra-procedural’ in the strict sense or ‘inter-procedural’ is relevant for the question of whether a cross-appeal may be lodged, which is possible if the condition is intra-procedural in the strict sense, or a separate appeal must be lodged, which is the case if the condition is inter-procedural, such as in this case (see also para. 48 below).","Page 6",[274],[271,272,273],"The citation identifies the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation as different actions, classifies the condition as inter-procedural, and expressly states that an inter-procedural condition requires a separate appeal rather than a cross-appeal.","Article 32(1) UPCA","Article 33(3)(b) UPCA","Rule 265.2 RoP",{"_210":275,"_212":276,"_214":108,"_215":277,"_217":266,"_218":219,"_220":278,"_221":276},"p0006-b002",6,1622,"p0006-b007","a4e42846-47e9-5d12-b2f0-56d039ddf6b2","9e674a46-b78a-5d88-a009-6b9a407cb735","Rule 263.1","RoP","rules_of_procedure","An unconditional request to make a revocation counterclaim conditional is treated as a limitation for which Rule 263.3 RoP applies by analogy.","Pages 6, 7: According to R. 263.3 RoP leave to limit a claim when it is applied for unconditionally shall always be granted. Making a claim conditional is a limitation, because it limits the circumstances under which it is required to be adjudicated. Making a claim conditional upon a certain occurrence can be done unconditionally. 25. The underlying rationale of this Rule is that a party is free to narrow the scope of its own claim, because it does not worsen the procedural position of the other party if the claimant seeks less relief than previously requested and thus cannot prejudice it. The question of whether the claimant would need to limit its claim is not relevant. A limitation does not require any justification. 26. The same rationale applies where a counterclaim for revocation is made conditional upon a finding of infringement. It narrows the circumstances in which the Court is asked to adjudicate on the requests of that action. Making a counterclaim conditional upon a finding of infringement therefore does not adversely affect the other party’s procedural position. It follows that the counterclaimant does not require a justification for doing so, as Emboline seems to suggest (para. 16 Application for review).","The Court held that making a claim conditional limits the circumstances under which it is required to be adjudicated. It applied the rationale of Rule 263.3 RoP by analogy because the counterclaimant narrows its own request and the conditional counterclaim does not adversely affect the other party’s procedural position.","The request must be granted where it narrows the circumstances in which the counterclaim must be adjudicated without adversely affecting the other party’s procedural position.","According to R. 263.3 RoP leave to limit a claim when it is applied for unconditionally shall always be granted. Making a claim conditional is a limitation, because it limits the circumstances under which it is required to be adjudicated. Making a claim conditional upon a certain occurrence can be done unconditionally. 25. The underlying rationale of this Rule is that a party is free to narrow the scope of its own claim, because it does not worsen the procedural position of the other party if the claimant seeks less relief than previously requested and thus cannot prejudice it. The question of whether the claimant would need to limit its claim is not relevant. A limitation does not require any justification. 26. The same rationale applies where a counterclaim for revocation is made conditional upon a finding of infringement. It narrows the circumstances in which the Court is asked to adjudicate on the requests of that action. Making a counterclaim conditional upon a finding of infringement therefore does not adversely affect the other party’s procedural position. It follows that the counterclaimant does not require a justification for doing so, as Emboline seems to suggest (para. 16 Application for review).","Pages 6, 7",[296],[294,295],"partial","The citation supports that making the counterclaim conditional is a limitation, that the request can be unconditional, and that it does not adversely affect the other party. However, it does not expressly state in the cited passage that Rule 263.3 RoP applies by analogy or expressly direct that the counterclaim request must be granted.","Rule 263.1 RoP","Rule 263.3 RoP",{"_210":297,"_212":276,"_214":108,"_215":298,"_217":288,"_218":219,"_220":299,"_221":300},"p0006-b020",1226,"p0007-b007",7,"4ce9a79e-a215-5fab-b4b5-003b35df2e6c","7d0091a4-d659-532d-bbce-1787a90328c0","Article 56(1)","A counterclaim for revocation may be made conditional upon a finding of infringement because the UPCA and Rules of Procedure do not exclude that condition per se.","Page 6: 21. However, whether the condition of a finding of infringement must be considered intra-procedural or interprocedural has no relevance for the question of whether making a counterclaim conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible. Nothing in the UPCA or Rules of Procedure suggests that this is excluded per se. R. 30.1(c) RoP allows an Application to amend the patent containing conditional proposals for amendments of the claim(s). Art. 56(1) UPCA explicitly provides that the Court may make its orders subject to conditions, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. R. 118.2(a) RoP provides that the Court may render its decision in infringement proceedings under the condition subsequent that the patent is not held invalid by the final decision in revocation proceedings pending before the central division (i.e. a different action) or a final decision of the European Patent Office (i.e. even a different body) or under any other term or condition. 22. It is fully in line therewith that a party may also make its counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement.","The Court relied on provisions recognising conditional patent amendments, conditional orders and conditional infringement decisions. It held that making a revocation counterclaim conditional upon a finding of infringement is fully consistent with that framework.","21. However, whether the condition of a finding of infringement must be considered intra-procedural or interprocedural has no relevance for the question of whether making a counterclaim conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible. Nothing in the UPCA or Rules of Procedure suggests that this is excluded per se. R. 30.1(c) RoP allows an Application to amend the patent containing conditional proposals for amendments of the claim(s). Art. 56(1) UPCA explicitly provides that the Court may make its orders subject to conditions, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. R. 118.2(a) RoP provides that the Court may render its decision in infringement proceedings under the condition subsequent that the patent is not held invalid by the final decision in revocation proceedings pending before the central division (i.e. a different action) or a final decision of the European Patent Office (i.e. even a different body) or under any other term or condition. 22. It is fully in line therewith that a party may also make its counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement.",[314],[311,312,313],"The citation expressly states that nothing in the UPCA or Rules of Procedure excludes the condition per se, and relies on Rule 30.1(c) RoP, Article 56(1) UPCA, and Rule 118.2(a) RoP to conclude that a party may make its revocation counterclaim conditional upon a finding of infringement.","Article 56(1) UPCA","Rule 30.1(c) RoP","Rule 118.2(a) RoP",{"_210":315,"_212":276,"_214":108,"_215":316,"_217":307,"_218":219,"_220":317,"_221":276},"p0006-b008",1107,"p0006-b013","fields",{"_156":324,"_145":325,"_162":326},"updated_at","2026-09-19T21:49:06.778117+00:00","run_id","30e794ef-b453-5e0f-9717-068e8115c604",{"_327":339},{"_327":336},{"_327":328},"targets",{"_83":329,"_81":330,"_10":331},{"_332":333,"_320":321,"_322":323,"_334":335},{"_332":333,"_320":321,"_322":323,"_334":335},{"_332":333,"_320":321,"_322":323,"_334":335},"origin","machine","stale",true,{"_83":337,"_81":338},{"_332":333,"_320":321,"_322":323},{"_332":333,"_320":321,"_322":323},{"_83":340,"_81":341},{"_332":333,"_320":321,"_322":323,"_334":335},{"_332":333,"_320":321,"_322":323,"_334":335},"

Le 17 août 2026, la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet a rendu une ordonnance dans les affaires UPC-CoA-40/2026 et UPC-CoA-123/2026 concernant la demande de réexamen au titre de la règle 333 du règlement de procédure d’Emboline et la demande de rétablissement des droits au titre de la règle 320 du règlement de procédure d’AorticLab. Emboline avait introduit une action en contrefaçon concernant le EP 2 129 425 contre AorticLab, qui a formé une demande reconventionnelle en nullité et l’a ensuite rendue conditionnelle à la constatation d’une contrefaçon par la Cour. La division locale de Munich a conclu à l’absence de contrefaçon, a jugé que la condition pour statuer sur la demande reconventionnelle n’était pas remplie, n’a pas statué au fond sur la demande reconventionnelle et a condamné AorticLab aux dépens correspondants.

La Cour a jugé que l’action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité sont des actions distinctes, de sorte que la condition est interprocédurale et qu’un appel distinct est requis, plutôt qu’un appel incident dans la procédure en contrefaçon. Elle a jugé qu’il est permis de rendre la demande reconventionnelle conditionnelle à la constatation d’une contrefaçon et que la règle 263.3 du règlement de procédure s’applique par analogie lorsque la demande de limitation est inconditionnelle. La Cour a jugé que la non-réalisation de la condition ne fait pas cesser d’exister l’action en nullité, ne la rend pas non introduite et n’entraîne pas son retrait, mais signifie que la Cour n’a pas à statuer au fond sur la demande reconventionnelle et qu’elle doit déclarer que la condition n’était pas remplie et statuer sur les dépens.

Lorsque la condition vise une constatation de contrefaçon par « la Cour », la Cour a jugé que cette expression vise normalement à la fois la juridiction de première instance et la Cour d’appel, de sorte que la demande reconventionnelle conditionnelle reste pendante pendant le délai d’appel. Si la condition est remplie par une constatation de contrefaçon en appel, la Cour d’appel devrait en règle générale statuer elle-même sur la demande reconventionnelle plutôt que la renvoyer devant la juridiction de première instance.

La Cour a rétabli le droit d’AorticLab de déposer ses actes d’appel, a déclaré ces actes recevables, a rejeté la demande de réexamen d’Emboline et a fixé à deux mois après le dépôt des actes d’appel le délai imparti à Emboline pour déposer son mémoire en réponse.

","

Am 17. August 2026 erließ das Berufungsgericht des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts eine Anordnung in UPC-CoA-40/2026 und UPC-CoA-123/2026 betreffend Embolines Antrag auf Überprüfung nach R. 333 VerfO und AorticLabs Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand nach R. 320 VerfO. Emboline hatte eine Verletzungsklage betreffend EP 2 129 425 gegen AorticLab erhoben. AorticLab erhob eine Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung und machte diese später von einer Feststellung der Verletzung durch das Gericht abhängig. Die Lokalkammer München stellte keine Verletzung fest, entschied, dass die Voraussetzung für eine Entscheidung über die Widerklage nicht erfüllt war, entschied nicht in der Sache über die Widerklage und legte AorticLab die damit verbundenen Kosten auf.

Das Gericht stellte fest, dass die Verletzungsklage und die Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung getrennte Klagen sind, sodass die Bedingung interprozessual ist und ein gesondertes Rechtsmittel erforderlich ist, anstatt eines Anschlussrechtsmittels im Verletzungsverfahren. Es stellte fest, dass es zulässig ist, die Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung von einer Feststellung der Verletzung abhängig zu machen, und dass R. 263.3 VerfO entsprechend anzuwenden ist, wenn der Antrag unbedingt auf eine Beschränkung gerichtet ist. Das Gericht stellte fest, dass die Nichterfüllung der Bedingung nicht dazu führt, dass die Nichtigkeitsklage erlischt, als nicht eingereicht gilt oder zurückgenommen wird, sondern bedeutet, dass das Gericht nicht in der Sache über die Widerklage entscheiden muss und feststellen muss, dass die Bedingung nicht erfüllt war, und über die Kosten entscheiden muss.

Wenn sich die Bedingung auf eine Feststellung der Verletzung durch „das Gericht“ bezieht, stellte das Gericht fest, dass dies gewöhnlich sowohl das Gericht erster Instanz als auch das Berufungsgericht bezeichnet, sodass die bedingte Widerklage während der Berufungsfrist anhängig bleibt. Wenn die Bedingung durch eine Feststellung der Verletzung im Berufungsverfahren erfüllt wird, sollte das Berufungsgericht die Widerklage grundsätzlich selbst entscheiden, statt sie an das Gericht erster Instanz zurückzuverweisen.

Das Gericht stellte AorticLabs Recht zur Einreichung seiner Berufungsunterlagen wieder her, erklärte diese Unterlagen für zulässig, wies Embolines beantragte Überprüfung zurück und setzte die Frist für Embolines Erwiderung auf zwei Monate nach Einreichung der Berufungsunterlagen fest.

",{"_347":157,"_348":401},{"_347":342,"_348":382},{"_347":343,"_348":349},"summary_html","sentences",[350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358],{"_359":54,"_361":380,"_363":335,"_217":381,"_212":54,"_221":54,"_366":367},{"_359":51,"_361":378,"_363":29,"_217":379,"_212":51,"_221":51,"_366":367},{"_359":47,"_361":376,"_363":29,"_217":377,"_212":47,"_221":47,"_366":367},{"_359":213,"_361":375,"_363":335,"_217":266,"_212":276,"_221":276,"_366":367},{"_359":372,"_361":373,"_363":29,"_217":374,"_212":47,"_221":47,"_366":367},{"_359":276,"_361":371,"_363":29,"_217":249,"_212":239,"_221":239,"_366":367},{"_359":300,"_361":369,"_363":335,"_217":370,"_212":239,"_221":239,"_366":367},{"_359":239,"_361":368,"_363":29,"_217":192,"_212":213,"_221":213,"_366":367},{"_359":360,"_361":362,"_363":335,"_217":364,"_212":365,"_221":365,"_366":367},"number",9,"html","Das Gericht stellte AorticLabs Recht zur Einreichung seiner Berufungsunterlagen wieder her, erklärte diese Unterlagen für zulässig, wies Embolines beantragte Überprüfung zurück und setzte die Frist für Embolines Erwiderung auf zwei Monate nach Einreichung der Berufungsunterlagen fest.","paragraph_break_before","ORDER The Court of Appeal: I. rejects the requested review of the Clarification order and dismisses the requests contained therein; II. re-establishes AorticLab’s right to lodge a Statement of appeal against the impugned decision and to lodge a Statement of grounds of appeal; III. declares the Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal filed on 24 July 2026 to be admissible; IV. sets the time period for lodging the Statement of response at 2 months after filing the Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal.",12,"document_url","https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/21a1c0ac-b6a3-4aca-9477-d51e4f5d7afa.pdf","Wenn die Bedingung durch eine Feststellung der Verletzung im Berufungsverfahren erfüllt wird, sollte das Berufungsgericht die Widerklage grundsätzlich selbst entscheiden, statt sie an das Gericht erster Instanz zurückzuverweisen.","Wenn sich die Bedingung auf eine Feststellung der Verletzung durch „das Gericht“ bezieht, stellte das Gericht fest, dass dies gewöhnlich sowohl das Gericht erster Instanz als auch das Berufungsgericht bezeichnet, sodass die bedingte Widerklage während der Berufungsfrist anhängig bleibt.","34. In addition, where a counterclaim for revocation is made conditional upon a finding of infringement by ‘the Court’, in the absence of an explicit indication by a party to the contrary (e.g. by explicitly referring to ‘the Court of First Instance’), ‘the Court’ must be understood as to refer to both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. According to Art. 2 UPCA, ‘the Court’ means the Unified Patent Court created by the Agreement and according to Art. 6 UPCA the Court shall comprise a Court of First Instance and a Court of Appeal. The condition of a finding of infringement by ‘the Court’, must thus be understood to mean a final finding of infringement, i.e. in case the infringement claimant appeals from a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance, a finding of infringement by the Court of Appeal. 35. Consequently, after a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance, the conditional counterclaim is still ‘pending’ for the duration of the appeal period and the decision may be appealed from, after which it becomes pending before the Court of Appeal. 36. As already stated in the Clarification order, and not disputed by Emboline, the counterclaimant’s interest in bringing its conditional counterclaim before the Court of Appeal lies in the circumstance that the Court of First Instance’s finding that the condition was not fulfilled is (retrospectively) wrong, if the infringement claimant appeals from the finding of non-infringement and the Court of Appeal finds that the patent is infringed.","Das Gericht stellte fest, dass die Nichterfüllung der Bedingung nicht dazu führt, dass die Nichtigkeitsklage erlischt, als nicht eingereicht gilt oder zurückgenommen wird, sondern bedeutet, dass das Gericht nicht in der Sache über die Widerklage entscheiden muss und feststellen muss, dass die Bedingung nicht erfüllt war, und über die Kosten entscheiden muss.",5,"Es stellte fest, dass es zulässig ist, die Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung von einer Feststellung der Verletzung abhängig zu machen, und dass R. 263.3 VerfO entsprechend anzuwenden ist, wenn der Antrag unbedingt auf eine Beschränkung gerichtet ist.","5. The Court of Appeal agrees with the LDM that limiting a counterclaim for revocation by making it conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible. Even if R. 263.3 RoP is not directly applicable since it is not the claim(s) but rather the entire action that is limited by making it conditional, the balance of interests under R. 263.3 corresponds to that in the case of making a counterclaim for revocation conditional. Failing a Rule covering such a situation, R. 263.3 RoP shall apply by analogy. Thus, if the counterclaimant unconditionally requests that its claim is made conditional upon a finding of infringement, pursuant to R. 263.3 RoP by analogy, such request shall be granted.","Das Gericht stellte fest, dass die Verletzungsklage und die Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung getrennte Klagen sind, sodass die Bedingung interprozessual ist und ein gesondertes Rechtsmittel erforderlich ist, anstatt eines Anschlussrechtsmittels im Verletzungsverfahren.","Die Lokalkammer München stellte keine Verletzung fest, entschied, dass die Voraussetzung für eine Entscheidung über die Widerklage nicht erfüllt war, entschied nicht in der Sache über die Widerklage und legte AorticLab die damit verbundenen Kosten auf.","4. In its decision of 13 January 2026, the LDM held that the patent had not been infringed and that the condition for deciding the counterclaim was not fulfilled. Consequently, the LDM did not decide on the counterclaim, held that the costs incurred in relation to the counterclaim are to be considered unnecessary and, pursuant to Art. 69(3) UPCA, ordered AorticLab to bear the costs.","Emboline hatte eine Verletzungsklage betreffend EP 2 129 425 gegen AorticLab erhoben. AorticLab erhob eine Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung und machte diese später von einer Feststellung der Verletzung durch das Gericht abhängig.","Dr. Thure Schubert, attorney at law, and other attorneys at law of Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and patent attorneys of KIPA AB, Helsingborg, Sweden PATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 129 425 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English DECIDING JUDGES Panel 2 Rian Kalden, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Renaud Fulconis, technically qualified judge Max Tilmann, technically qualified judge IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Decision of the Local Division Munich issued on 13 January 2026 in the infringement (UPC-CFI-628/2024) and counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC-CFI-125/2025) SUMMARY OF FACTS 1. Emboline filed a Statement of claim against AorticLab, alleging that AorticLab infringes the patent at issue. 2. AorticLab lodged a counterclaim for revocation and requested that the Local Division Munich (LDM) revoke the patent at issue in its entirety with effect in all the Contracting Member States of the UPC in which the patent has effect (Art. 65(2) UPCA, R. 25 RoP). 3. During the oral hearing, AorticLab declared that it would not pursue its counterclaim as originally filed and instead made the counterclaim dependent on the occurrence of a finding of patent infringement by the Court.","Am 17. August 2026 erließ das Berufungsgericht des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts eine Anordnung in UPC-CoA-40/2026 und UPC-CoA-123/2026 betreffend Embolines Antrag auf Überprüfung nach R. 333 VerfO und AorticLabs Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand nach R. 320 VerfO.","UPC Court of Appeal UPC-CoA-40/2026 UPC-CoA-123/2026 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 17 August 2026 concerning a request for review pursuant to R. 333 RoP and an application for re-establishment of rights pursuant to R. 320 RoP HEADNOTES: 1) The infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are separate actions under the UPCA and Rules of Procedure.",[383,384,385,386,387,388,389,390,391],{"_359":54,"_361":400,"_363":335,"_217":381,"_212":54,"_221":54,"_366":367},{"_359":51,"_361":399,"_363":29,"_217":379,"_212":51,"_221":51,"_366":367},{"_359":47,"_361":398,"_363":29,"_217":377,"_212":47,"_221":47,"_366":367},{"_359":213,"_361":397,"_363":335,"_217":266,"_212":276,"_221":276,"_366":367},{"_359":372,"_361":396,"_363":29,"_217":374,"_212":47,"_221":47,"_366":367},{"_359":276,"_361":395,"_363":29,"_217":249,"_212":239,"_221":239,"_366":367},{"_359":300,"_361":394,"_363":335,"_217":370,"_212":239,"_221":239,"_366":367},{"_359":239,"_361":393,"_363":29,"_217":192,"_212":213,"_221":213,"_366":367},{"_359":360,"_361":392,"_363":335,"_217":364,"_212":365,"_221":365,"_366":367},"La Cour a rétabli le droit d’AorticLab de déposer ses actes d’appel, a déclaré ces actes recevables, a rejeté la demande de réexamen d’Emboline et a fixé à deux mois après le dépôt des actes d’appel le délai imparti à Emboline pour déposer son mémoire en réponse.","Si la condition est remplie par une constatation de contrefaçon en appel, la Cour d’appel devrait en règle générale statuer elle-même sur la demande reconventionnelle plutôt que la renvoyer devant la juridiction de première instance.","Lorsque la condition vise une constatation de contrefaçon par « la Cour », la Cour a jugé que cette expression vise normalement à la fois la juridiction de première instance et la Cour d’appel, de sorte que la demande reconventionnelle conditionnelle reste pendante pendant le délai d’appel.","La Cour a jugé que la non-réalisation de la condition ne fait pas cesser d’exister l’action en nullité, ne la rend pas non introduite et n’entraîne pas son retrait, mais signifie que la Cour n’a pas à statuer au fond sur la demande reconventionnelle et qu’elle doit déclarer que la condition n’était pas remplie et statuer sur les dépens.","Elle a jugé qu’il est permis de rendre la demande reconventionnelle conditionnelle à la constatation d’une contrefaçon et que la règle 263.3 du règlement de procédure s’applique par analogie lorsque la demande de limitation est inconditionnelle.","La Cour a jugé que l’action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité sont des actions distinctes, de sorte que la condition est interprocédurale et qu’un appel distinct est requis, plutôt qu’un appel incident dans la procédure en contrefaçon.","La division locale de Munich a conclu à l’absence de contrefaçon, a jugé que la condition pour statuer sur la demande reconventionnelle n’était pas remplie, n’a pas statué au fond sur la demande reconventionnelle et a condamné AorticLab aux dépens correspondants.","Emboline avait introduit une action en contrefaçon concernant le EP 2 129 425 contre AorticLab, qui a formé une demande reconventionnelle en nullité et l’a ensuite rendue conditionnelle à la constatation d’une contrefaçon par la Cour.","Le 17 août 2026, la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet a rendu une ordonnance dans les affaires UPC-CoA-40/2026 et UPC-CoA-123/2026 concernant la demande de réexamen au titre de la règle 333 du règlement de procédure d’Emboline et la demande de rétablissement des droits au titre de la règle 320 du règlement de procédure d’AorticLab.",[402,403,404,405,406,407,408,409,410],{"_359":54,"_361":419,"_363":335,"_217":381,"_212":54,"_221":54,"_366":367},{"_359":51,"_361":418,"_363":29,"_217":379,"_212":51,"_221":51,"_366":367},{"_359":47,"_361":417,"_363":29,"_217":377,"_212":47,"_221":47,"_366":367},{"_359":213,"_361":416,"_363":335,"_217":266,"_212":276,"_221":276,"_366":367},{"_359":372,"_361":415,"_363":29,"_217":374,"_212":47,"_221":47,"_366":367},{"_359":276,"_361":414,"_363":29,"_217":249,"_212":239,"_221":239,"_366":367},{"_359":300,"_361":413,"_363":335,"_217":370,"_212":239,"_221":239,"_366":367},{"_359":239,"_361":412,"_363":29,"_217":192,"_212":213,"_221":213,"_366":367},{"_359":360,"_361":411,"_363":335,"_217":364,"_212":365,"_221":365,"_366":367},"The Court re-established AorticLab’s right to lodge its appeal documents, declared those documents admissible, rejected Emboline’s requested review, and set the period for Emboline’s statement of response at two months after filing of the appeal documents.","If the condition is fulfilled by a finding of infringement on appeal, the Court of Appeal should as a rule decide the counterclaim itself rather than refer it back to the Court of First Instance.","Where the condition refers to a finding of infringement by “the Court”, the Court held that this ordinarily refers to both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, so the conditional counterclaim remains pending during the appeal period.","The Court held that non-fulfilment of the condition does not make the revocation action cease to exist, not filed, or withdrawn, but means that the Court need not decide the counterclaim on its substance and must declare that the condition was not fulfilled and decide costs.","It held that making the counterclaim conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible and that R. 263.3 RoP applies by analogy when the request is an unconditional limitation.","The Court held that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are separate actions, so the condition is inter-procedural and a separate appeal is required rather than a cross-appeal in the infringement proceedings.","The Local Division Munich found no infringement, held that the condition for deciding the counterclaim was not fulfilled, did not decide the counterclaim on its substance, and ordered AorticLab to bear the related costs.","Emboline had brought an infringement action concerning EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab, which filed a counterclaim for revocation and later made it dependent on a finding of infringement by the Court.","On 17 August 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order in UPC-CoA-40/2026 and UPC-CoA-123/2026 concerning Emboline’s request for review under R. 333 RoP and AorticLab’s application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP.",{"_118":421,"_422":423,"_15":424,"_65":367,"_9":425,"_426":424,"_427":428,"_429":29,"_430":100,"_431":432,"_433":434,"_435":-5,"_436":-5,"_437":438,"_439":440,"_441":442,"_443":444,"_445":446,"_447":367,"_448":-5,"_449":450,"_451":452,"_453":454,"_455":456,"_457":458},"11f58b93-557a-40f8-b6d0-4a50fec2c3a9","source_document_key","4573e6c4d48612bf48a109d80de6be0f74d4f849715d6d01bbe0b679218b824d","Download Order review and re establishement 40 + 123-2026_signed.pdf","UNK","label","doc_kind","decision_pdf","is_translation","case_id","pdf_hash","7cc48a5242ee45b5daaf30f8fba34f44","pdf_filename","21a1c0ac-b6a3-4aca-9477-d51e4f5d7afa.pdf","storage_error_code","storage_error_message","storage_status","stored","stored_at","2026-08-19T13:14:03.847000+00:00","pdf_content_type","application/pdf","pdf_sha256","8a1e09139f747862859c6749a5563876659ef96919f0f7d33cbfb6d1d723845f","pdf_size_bytes",713477,"source_final_url","source_http_etag","source_http_last_modified","Mon, 17 Aug 2026 13:04:09 GMT","stored_pdf_asset_id","db602d28-172c-440f-b58d-699721b62a3e","stored_pdf_bucket","upc-pdfs","stored_pdf_object_key","case-documents/sha256/8a/8a1e09139f747862859c6749a5563876659ef96919f0f7d33cbfb6d1d723845f.pdf","stored_pdf_url","/api/assets/db602d28-172c-440f-b58d-699721b62a3e",[460,461,462,463,464],"infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation separate actions","relevance of intra-procedural and inter-procedural condition","application of R. 263.3 by analogy","meaning of ‘the Court’","meaning of ‘failed to decide’ in R. 242.2(b) RoP","1) L’action en contrefaçon et la demande reconventionnelle en nullité sont des actions distinctes au titre de l’Accord relatif à une juridiction unifiée du brevet et du règlement de procédure. Rendre la demande reconventionnelle en nullité conditionnelle à une constatation de contrefaçon constitue une condition « interprocédurale ». 2) La question de savoir si une condition est « intraprocédurale » au sens strict ou « interprocédurale » est pertinente pour déterminer si un appel incident peut être formé, ce qui est possible si la condition est intraprocédurale au sens strict, ou si un appel distinct doit être formé, ce qui est le cas lorsque la condition est interprocédurale. 3) La question de savoir si la condition d’une constatation de contrefaçon doit être considérée comme intraprocédurale ou interprocédurale n’a aucune pertinence pour déterminer s’il est permis de rendre une demande reconventionnelle conditionnelle à une constatation de contrefaçon. Rien dans l’Accord relatif à une juridiction unifiée du brevet ou dans le règlement de procédure ne donne à penser que cela est exclu en soi. 4) Lorsqu’une demande reconventionnelle en nullité est rendue conditionnelle à une constatation de contrefaçon, les demandes restent inchangées, mais sont limitées quant à la nécessité de statuer sur celles-ci. Cela ne signifie pas que l’ensemble de l’action en nullité relative à la demande reconventionnelle est rendu conditionnel à une constatation de contrefaçon, en ce sens qu’il ne serait pas pendant aussi longtemps et/ou dès lors que la condition n’est pas remplie. La règle 263.3 du règlement de procédure s’applique par analogie, voir l’ordonnance de clarification du 16 juillet 2026 dans l’affaire UPC-CoA 40/2026. 5) Lorsqu’une demande reconventionnelle en nullité est rendue conditionnelle à une constatation de contrefaçon par « la Cour », en l’absence d’indication expresse contraire d’une partie, par exemple en faisant explicitement référence à « la juridiction de première instance », « la Cour » doit être comprise comme visant à la fois la juridiction de première instance et la Cour d’appel. En conséquence, après une décision de non-contrefaçon rendue par la juridiction de première instance, la demande reconventionnelle conditionnelle reste « pendante » pendant la durée du délai d’appel et la décision peut faire l’objet d’un appel, après quoi elle devient pendante devant la Cour d’appel. 6) Dans la règle 242.2 b) du règlement de procédure, l’expression « n’a pas statué » ne vise pas uniquement une « omission imputable à la Cour », mais vise toute situation dans laquelle un élément pertinent pour une décision en appel n’a pas été tranché en première instance, quelle qu’en soit la raison. Rien dans la règle 242.2 b) du règlement de procédure ne permet de traiter différemment les arguments de non-contrefaçon et les arguments de nullité, et il n’existe aucune raison de le faire.","1) Die Verletzungsklage und die Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung sind nach dem EPGÜ und der Verfahrensordnung getrennte Klagen. Die Abhängigmachung der Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung von einer Feststellung der Verletzung ist eine „interprozedurale“ Bedingung. 2) Ob eine Bedingung im strengen Sinne „intraprozedural“ oder „interprozedural“ ist, ist für die Frage erheblich, ob ein Anschlussrechtsmittel eingelegt werden kann, was möglich ist, wenn die Bedingung im strengen Sinne intraprozedural ist, oder ob ein gesondertes Rechtsmittel eingelegt werden muss, was bei einer interprozeduralen Bedingung der Fall ist. 3) Ob die Bedingung einer Feststellung der Verletzung als intraprozedural oder interprozedural anzusehen ist, ist für die Frage, ob eine Widerklage von einer Feststellung der Verletzung abhängig gemacht werden darf, ohne Bedeutung. Nichts im EPGÜ oder in der Verfahrensordnung deutet darauf hin, dass dies als solches ausgeschlossen ist. 4) Wird eine Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung von einer Feststellung der Verletzung abhängig gemacht, bleiben die Ansprüche unverändert, sind jedoch hinsichtlich der Notwendigkeit einer Entscheidung beschränkt. Dies bedeutet nicht, dass die gesamte Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung als solche im Sinne davon von einer Feststellung der Verletzung abhängig gemacht wird, dass sie nicht anhängig wäre, solange und/oder sobald die Bedingung nicht erfüllt ist. R. 263.3 VerfO ist entsprechend anzuwenden (siehe Klarstellungsanordnung vom 16. Juli 2026 in UPC-CoA 40/2026). 5) Wird eine Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung von einer Feststellung der Verletzung durch „das Gericht“ abhängig gemacht, ist „das Gericht“ mangels einer ausdrücklichen gegenteiligen Angabe einer Partei, beispielsweise durch ausdrückliche Bezugnahme auf „das Gericht erster Instanz“, dahin zu verstehen, dass damit sowohl das Gericht erster Instanz als auch das Berufungsgericht gemeint sind. Folglich ist die bedingte Widerklage nach einer Feststellung der Nichtverletzung durch das Gericht erster Instanz während der Berufungsfrist weiterhin „anhängig“, und gegen die Entscheidung kann ein Rechtsmittel eingelegt werden; anschließend ist sie beim Berufungsgericht anhängig. 6) In R. 242.2(b) VerfO bezieht sich die Formulierung „failed to decide“ nicht (nur) auf eine dem Gericht zurechenbare „Unterlassung“, sondern auf jede Situation, in der etwas für eine Entscheidung im Berufungsverfahren Erhebliches in erster Instanz nicht entschieden wurde, unabhängig vom Grund dafür. Weder gibt es in R. 242.2(b) VerfO einen Hinweis noch einen Grund, nicht entschiedene Verletzungs- und Nichtigkeitsargumente unterschiedlich zu behandeln.","EP 2 129 425","Emboline, Inc.","AorticLab srl"]

UPC-COA-0000040/2026

Summary by Casalonga

Keywords

Headnotes

Key Takeaways

A counterclaim for revocation may be made conditional upon a finding of infringement because the UPCA and Rules of Procedure do not exclude that condition per se.

An unconditional request to make a revocation counterclaim conditional is treated as a limitation for which Rule 263.3 RoP applies by analogy.

An infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation are separate actions, so a condition linking the counterclaim to a finding in the infringement action is inter-procedural and must be challenged by a separate appeal rather than a cross-appeal.

Non-fulfilment of the condition limits the need for a merits decision on the revocation counterclaim but does not make the action cease to exist, not filed or withdrawn.

Unless the party expressly indicates otherwise, a condition requiring a finding of infringement by “the Court” refers to both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal and therefore requires a final finding of infringement.

When a conditional revocation counterclaim becomes operative following a Court of Appeal finding of infringement, the Court of Appeal should as a rule decide the counterclaim rather than refer it back to the Court of First Instance.

Personal Notes