Case Law
Rule 222: Subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 20/12/2024, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O (Case/ Registry number: APL_40553/2024, ORD_60221/2024)
Example of decision on the importance of claim’s interpretation before TBA: "The patent claim is the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of the European patent and the description and the drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim (Court of Appeal 26 February 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2023 App_576355/2023, NanoString/10x, p. 26). A linguistic error, a spelling mistake or any other inaccuracy in a patent claim can only be corrected by way of interpretation of the patent claim if the existence of an error and the precise way to correct it are sufficiently certain to the average skilled person on the basis of the patent claim, taking into account the description and the drawings and using common general knowledge."

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 19/12/2024, Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited v. Syngenta Limited (Case/ Registry number: APL_51115/2024, ORD_56404/2024)
Example of decision on the presentation of new evidences: "A party has submitted new evidence in the appeal proceedings. In view of the fact that the party had submitted other pages from the same publication in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal considers that the party has not justified that additional pages from the same publication could not reasonably have been made during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. The evidence will thus be disregarded by the Court of Appeal."

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 21/11/2024, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION (Case/ Registry number: APL_50205/2024, ORD_61000/2024)
Example of decision on new legal arguments on appeal: "Pursuant to R. 222.2 RoP, the Court of Appeal may disregard “requests, facts and evidence” which were not submitted by a party during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. This wording makes it clear that the rule does not apply to legal arguments. R. 222.2 RoP therefore does not prevent a party from submitting a new legal argument on appeal, provided that the argument is based on the facts and evidence submitted to the Court of First Instance."