UPC Court of Appeal Strictly Applies Reinstatement Rules for Missed Appeal Deadlines

By Haedar

Photo: MarkThomas / Pixabay

Procedural deadlines at the Unified Patent Court (UPC) leave little room for error. On 9 October 2026, the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg refused reinstatement of NST's right to appeal an order to produce evidence in a case against Qualcomm, according to IP-PorTal (IPPT20261009, UPC CoA, NST v Qualcomm).

The Court held that there was no excusable error by the representative. Due care was not taken to identify the applicable 15-day appeal period under Rule 224.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court noted that a document titled "decision" may also contain an order, and that "misleading" information about the appeal deadline is, by itself, not enough to create exceptional circumstances. The case raised no issue of exceptional importance.

Related October decisions

On 12 October, the Court of Appeal rejected applications by Promosome to extend the deadline for statements of grounds of appeal against BioNTech, holding that a heavy workload, school holidays and staff absences are foreseeable (IPPT20261012). On the same day, it granted Fujifilm a one-week extension to respond to a Kodak rehearing request, because the short extension did not disrupt the timetable (IPPT20261012). On 14 October, in Fives v REEL, the Court provisionally limited access to allegedly confidential information to legal representatives until the other party could comment (IPPT20261014).

Practical takeaway

UPC practice so far treats short appeal periods and reinstatement rules strictly. Parties and counsel should diary every order, not only documents labelled as decisions. We are not aware of an Indonesian procedural analogue that would apply these UPC rules. Indonesian patent appeals follow Commercial Court and Supreme Court timelines under national law.

Sources

• IP-PorTal, "2026 UPC October" summaries
• Unified Patent Court, Decisions and Orders