In an Order issued on August 31, 2026 (UPC-COA-312/2025), in Fujifilm Corporation vs. Kodak firms, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified when an application for rehearing pursuant to Art. 81 UPCA may be granted suspensive effect.
After the Court had set aside an order of the Mannheim Local Division and dismissed the infringement action, Fujifilm applied for rehearing pursuant to Art. 81 UPCA and R. 245 et seq. RoP. It alleged fundamental procedural defects, including violation of the principle of a fair trial and of its right to be heard, and requested suspensive effect.
The Court dismissed the request. Pursuant to Art. 81(2) UPCA and R. 252 RoP, an application for rehearing does not have suspensive effect unless the Court decides otherwise. Suspensive effect constitutes an exception and must be specifically justified.
A mere assertion of fundamental procedural defects is insufficient. Fujifilm had neither identified any specific prejudice resulting from maintaining the decision pending determination of the application, nor explained why such prejudice could not adequately be addressed if the application were allowed. It had also failed to demonstrate that the interests of justice required immediate suspension.
Key takeaway: An application for rehearing under Art. 81 UPCA does not, as a rule, suspend the challenged final decision. Suspensive effect is exceptional and requires specific justification based on the prejudice incurred, whether it could subsequently be addressed, and whether the interests of justice require immediate suspension.
septembre 2026
Auteurs
