Windhager v Bellissa (UPC_COA_0000894/2025)
Decision date:
02 December 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- At first instance, Belissa brought an infringement action before the Mannheim LD and Windhager counterclaimed for revocation of Belissa’s patent concerning a bed edging with a lockable sheet-metal strip. The Mannheim LD largely upheld Belissa’s infringement action, but Windhager’s revocation counterclaim was unsuccessful on the merits.
- Windhager lodged an appeal against the first instance decision and filed a motion with the Court of Appeal requesting that its appeal be granted suspensive effect because it maintained that the contested first instance decision contained “obvious errors”, particularly relating to the assessment of direct patent infringement and the dismissal of its revocation counterclaim. Windhager also argued that another revocation claim against Belissa’s patent had been brought in the Milan CD by LS 9 GmbH and therefore requested a stay of the appeal proceedings until a decision has been rendered in the new action.
- The Court of Appeal explained that pursuant to Rule 223.2 RoP, the request for suspensive effect “must contain (a) the reasons why the appeal should have suspensive effect and (b) the facts, evidence and legal arguments put forward". This means that the request must, on its own, enable the Court of Appeal to make a decision, if necessary, without further information.
- An order for suspensive effect may be considered if the decision being appeal is “manifestly erroneous” or the enforcement of the contested decision would render the appeal “largely moot”.
- Widhager referred to its grounds of appeal to substantiate its application for suspensive effect. The Court of Appeal noted that whether these are valid would be decided in the main appeal proceedings and that Windhager had not proven that the findings of the Mannheim LD constituted obvious errors or that there was any obvious inaccuracy in the decision. Windhager also claimed that its reputation would be damaged if the first instance decision was enforced by recall, removal from distribution channels and the destruction of the products found to be infringing. The Court of Appeal concluded that Windhager was not able to prove that its interest in preventing these measures outweighed Belissa’s interest in preventing infringement of its patent. Windhager’s application for suspensive effect was rejected.
- As the outcome of the new revocation action was at that stage unknown, the Court of Appeal concluded that the fact that it was pending before the Milan CD was irrelevant.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.