- within Privacy, Transport, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Signing and lodging documents pursuant to R. 4.1 RoP
The procedural document itself must bear an electronic signature. It is not sufficient to simply “sign submission” in the CMS after the upload of a submission. This is necessary to guarantee the authenticity of a procedural document and to exclude the risk that it is not in fact the work of the person authorized for that purpose.
Time extension pursuant to R. 9.3 RoP
An extension order can be issued after the time period has expired. Furthermore, the Court may grant a time extension even if the applicant lodged the request for extension after the time period has expired.
Due to the lack of CoA case law on the question of whether the signature in CMS can be considered as a signature under R. 4.1 RoP, the party’s error (i.e., “signing” only in the CMS) is excusable and justifies the requested time extension.
2. Division
UPC Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_61/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Application pursuant to R. 262A RoP
5. Parties
SharkNinja Operating LLC
Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 689 198
7. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 262A RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]