Appeal Deadlines and Unreasoned Decisions at the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal clarifies that the two-month deadline for lodging a Statement of appeal does not begin until the Court of First Instance serves a decision containing written reasons.
The procedural mechanics of appealing a Unified Patent Court decision have been steadily clarified since the Court's inception, particularly regarding the strict deadlines imposed by the Rules of Procedure. In a recent procedural order, the Court of Appeal has addressed the tension between unreasoned first-instance decisions and the strict statutory time limits for lodging an appeal, confirming exactly when the clock begins to tick.
An unreasoned decision from the Munich Local Division
The dispute in PR-UPC-COA-0000054/2026 arose from an infringement action filed by Philips against Belkin based on EP 2 867 997. Following an oral hearing on 11 February 2026, the Munich Local Division issued a panel decision without reasons.
Facing what they presumably calculated as an approaching two-month deadline from the date of the decision, Belkin lodged an appeal on 13 April 2026. This early filing created an immediate procedural headache. Under Rule 225(e) RoP, a Statement of appeal must contain the order or remedy sought. Belkin submitted that without knowing the actual grounds of the first-instance decision, they were entirely unable to formulate this required element (reasons 5).
To navigate this, Belkin requested that the Court of Appeal extend the deadline for the Rule 225(e) RoP requirement until the deadline for lodging the Grounds of appeal. In the alternative, they asked the Court to send a formal request to correct deficiencies pursuant to Rule 229.2 RoP.
The impossibility of extending an unstarted deadline
The panel, with Judge Rombach acting as judge-rapporteur, first observed the strict prohibition in Rule 9.4 RoP, which dictates that the Court shall not extend the time period for the Statement of appeal.
However, the panel left open whether it follows that, after the time period for lodging the Statement of appeal has passed, deficiencies in a notice lodged within the deadline may only be remedied by means of a formal request under Rule 229.2 RoP (reasons 6). The Court of Appeal did not need to resolve this hypothetical because the premise was flawed: the time limit for lodging the appeal had not yet started.
The statutory necessity of written grounds
The panel's reasoning rested on the intersection of the Rules of Procedure and the Unified Patent Court Agreement. While Rule 224.1(a) RoP states that a Statement of appeal shall be lodged within two months of service of a decision, Article 77(1) UPCA explicitly requires that decisions and orders of the Court shall be reasoned.
Because the grounds of the decision are indispensable for a party to formulate the order or remedy sought, the panel held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal begins to run only when the Court of First Instance (CFI) issues a decision including the reasons (reasons 7).
Citing the earlier Ballino v Kinexon order, the panel concluded there was no reason to extend a deadline that had not yet begun. This logic applied equally to Belkin's request for a partial extension regarding specific appeal requirements (reasons 8). Consequently, Belkin's requests were denied, and the Court found no necessity to issue a formal deficiency notice at this stage.
Practical implications
This order provides a clear procedural anchor for practitioners facing unreasoned decisions from the Court of First Instance. If a Local Division issues a bare operative decision following an oral hearing, the two-month clock for lodging a Statement of appeal remains entirely frozen.
Practitioners do not need to file a premature, incomplete Statement of appeal out of an abundance of caution to meet a deadline calculated from the hearing or the unreasoned order. The trigger for the Rule 224.1(a) RoP time period is strictly the service of the reasoned decision.
For parties who do find themselves having appealed early, the Court of Appeal's administrative instructions in this case offer a roadmap. The Registry will essentially hold the incomplete appeal in abeyance. Once the reasons are eventually served and the appellant is ready to complete their filing, they must notify the Registry. The Registry will then issue a notice to remedy deficiencies in the Case Management System, technically enabling the upload of the supplemental Statement of appeal and necessary documents.