Rule 11 – Settlement
Print this page1. At any stage of the proceedings, if the Court is of the opinion that the dispute is suitable for a settlement, it may propose that the parties make use of the facilities of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (“the Centre”) in order to settle or to explore a settlement of the dispute. In particular, the judge-rapporteur shall during the interim procedure, especially at an interim conference in accordance with Rule 104(d), explore with the parties the possibility of a settlement, including through mediation and/or arbitration, using the facilities of the Centre. Parties who choose mediation in an attempt to settle a dispute are subsequently not prevented from initiating judicial proceedings before the Court in relation to that dispute by the expiry of limitation or prescription periods during the mediation process, which will stay the limitation or prescription periods until the end of the mediation process. If mediation proceedings are terminated without a dispute settlement agreement, the period shall continue to run from that moment.
2. Pursuant to Rule 365 the Court shall, if requested by the parties, by decision confirm the terms of any settlement or arbitral award by consent (irrespective of whether it was reached using the facilities of the Centre or otherwise), including a term which obliges the patent owner to limit, surrender or agree to the revocation of a patent or not to assert it against the other party and/or third parties. The parties may agree on costs to be awarded or may request the Court to decide on costs to be awarded in accordance with Rules 150 to 156 mutatis mutandis.
3. Save for the purpose of enforcing the terms of any such settlement agreement by any person no opinion expressed, suggestion made, proposal put forward, concession made or document drawn up for the purposes of settlement may be relied on as evidence by the Court or the parties in proceedings before the Court or any other court unless such matter was expressed to be made on an open basis and freely disclosable to the Court or any other court.
Relation with Agreement: Articles 35, 52(2) and 79
Case Law
IPPT20240726, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Cane v France Development Electronique
Settlement confirmed by the Court; request to publish a redacted version granted (Rule 11 RoP, Rule 365 RoP). Application to withdraw exhibits by party agreement from the proceedings granted. Reimbursement of 60% of Court fees (Rule 370(9) RoP). Case was assigned to a single judge at the request of the parties, and the settlement was reached on 20 June 2024, before the close of the written procedure.
IPPT20240723, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios
Three ways to terminate proceedings. Parties may at any time conclude their action by way of settlement, which may be confirmed by the Court (Rule 11 RoP, Rule 365 RoP), by way of agreement to withdraw the action (Rule 265 RoP) or by application to dispose of the action for having become devoid of purpose (Rule 360 RoP).
IPPT20240501, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Keestrack v Geha Laverman
Withdrawal of proceedings pursuant to a settlement (Rule 265 RoP, Rule 11 RoP). Restitution of part of the court fee appropriate. With the case being terminated at an early stage, i.e. after the issuance of the summons and before the filing of a reply by the respondent, and therefore before the 'written proceedings' are concluded, 60% of the court fees paid will be refunded (Rule 370.9(b) RoP).