Rule 265 – Withdrawal

Print this page

1. As long as there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may apply to withdraw his action. The Court shall decide the application after hearing the other party. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court.

2. If withdrawal is permitted, the Court shall:

(a) give a decision declaring the proceedings closed;

(b) order the decision to be entered on the register; and

The withdrawal of an action by the claimant shall have no effect on any counterclaim in the action. The Court may however refer any counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division.

Case law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260506, UPC CoA, Lepu v Occlutech
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Appellant ordered to bear the respondent’s costs. As a general rule, in the event of a withdrawal of an appeal, the appellant shall be considered to be the unsuccessful party and shall bear the costs incurred in relation to the appeal proceedings

IPPT20260427, UPC CoA, Niche v Onward
Withdrawal of application for the assessment of costs permitted, without need to hear the respondent. The application has not yet been served on the respondent (R. 265 RoP, R. 151 RoP)

IPPT20260421, UPC CoA, Merz v Viatris
Invalidity defence in proceedings for provisional measures does not require a counterclaim for revocation and is not a separate action (R. 25.1 RoP, R. 205 RoP). Similarly, a waiver of an invalidity defence in proceedings for provisional measures is not an application to change the claim or amend the case in the meaning of R. 263 RoP, nor is it a withdrawal in the sense of R. 265 RoP.

IPPT20260325, UPC CoA, Sanofi & Regeneron v Amgen
IPPT20260324, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP).

IPPT20260311, UPC CoA, Menarini v Hoffmann La Roche
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP).

IPPT20260306, UPC CoA, Black Sheep v HL Display
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20260303, UPC CoA, BEGA v Washtower
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20260218, UPC CoA, Samsung Bioepis v Alexion
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20260129, UPC CoA, Alpinestars v Dainese
Withdrawal of request for a discretionary review of order of the Milan LD (R. 220.3 RoP). R. 265 RoP applies to discretionary review requests mutatis mutandis. The withdrawal is permitted after a decision on Alpinestars’ request for a discretionary review became obsolete since the Milan LD, by order of 13 January 2026, amended margin no. 3 of its order of 18 November 2025 and granted leave to appeal.

IPPT20251223, UPC COA, Sumi v Syngenta
Application for rehearing withdrawn jointly. proceedings closed. (Rule. 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20251223, UPC COA, Lindal Dispenser v Rocep-Lusol
Joint withdrawal of appeal permitted, proceedings closed. (Rule. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 60 % of court fees ordered - action withdrawn before proceedings concluded. (Rule. 370.9 (b)(i) RoP)

IPPT20251127, UPC CoA, Strabag v Swarco
Like a claimant an appellant may also apply to withdraw an appeal (R. 265.1 RoP). Interest of an intervening party is not relevant. The intervener's appeal in this case is inadmissible pursuant to R. 360 RoP. If the intervener is prevented by the withdrawal of the main party's appeal from the scope of its appeal from bringing about a review of the first-instance decision in terms of fact and law, it may invoke this in any subsequent proceedings against both parties. In this respect, the intervener's binding effect under R. 316.3 RoP is limited. The binding effect of decisions against the intervener. can only apply insofar as the intervener is not restricted in its conduct of the proceedings.

IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, LIFE 365 v Lama & HP
Withdrawal of application to intervene in proceedings that have been closed granted (R. 265 RoP, R. 313 RoP). In the absence of specific provisions relating to the withdrawal of an application to intervene filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 313 RoP, Rule 265 RoP shall apply by analogy to the withdrawal of an application to intervene.

IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, DDP v Greenchemicals
Withdrawal of the application for preliminary measures with the consent of the Defendant (R. 206 RoP, R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, Hanshow v Vusion
IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, HP v Lama
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250723, UPC CoA, Visibly v Easee
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP). A stay of proceedings does not prevent the possibility of withdrawal (R. 311 RoP)

IPPT20250722, UPC CoA, Philips v Belkin
Withdrawal of application for costs allowed without hearing Belkin (R. 265 RoP). Even without the withdrawal, no decision on the merits would have been issued, as the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction for applications for the determination of costs. No decision on costs is required here. As a rule, even the successful party bears the costs of the cost assessment proceedings (R. 150 RoP).

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tiroler v SSAB
Determination of costs following a withdrawal of an action is subject to the ordinary rules (R. 265 RoP, R. 150 et seq. RoP). The legal review on appeal of a decision as per art. R. 150 RoP is limited to a marginal review of whether the judge-rapporteur’s assessment of costs results in the successful party being compensated for legal costs and other expenses beyond what is reasonable and proportionate, or otherwise deviates from the principles inherent in Art. 69(1) UPCA, as specified in R. 150 et seq. RoP

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, OrthoApnea
Action withdrawn by appellant with consent. Appellant to pay costs of the appeal as the unsuccesfull party (R. 265 RoP), Article 69(1) UPCA)

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Advanced Bionics v Med-El
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)..

IPPT20250618, UPC CoA, ILME v Phoenix
Appeal has become devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) after the withdrawal of the infringement action has been allowed and the infringement proceedings have been declared closed. No need to submit a request for withdrawal of the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP. Appeal must be dismissed pursuant to R. 360 RoP. No need to make a decision on costs.

IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Harvard v Nanostring - II

Withdrawal of action and reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the submissions of a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal and a statement of response, unless a cross-appeal has been lodged. Upon expiry of the period for lodging these statements, the interim procedure begins (R. 239.1 RoP). It follows that, in the present case, the action was not withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure, but before the closure of the interim procedure. Accordingly, Harvard is entitled to a reimbursement of 40% of the Court fees it paid for the appeal pursuant to R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP, instead of 60% pursuant to R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP.

IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Harvard v Nanostring - I

Withdrawal of appeal by party consent without decision on costs (R. 265 RoP), following which the order to provide a security becomes devoid of purpose and security is released (Article 69.4 UPCA, R. 158 RoP)

IPPT20250523, UPC CoA, NJOY v Juul

Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250512, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon
No withdrawal of the action by Ballino (R. 265 RoP). It requests that the security order be reversed and that the main order be set aside and reversed in relation to the cost decision.

IPPT20250411, UPC CoA, Ericsson v Motorola
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250331, UPC CoA, Scandit v Hand Held Products
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). No ruling on costs requested.

IPPT20250305, UPC CoA, 10x Genomics v Vizgen
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP))

IPPT20250303, UPC CoA, Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics
Withdrawal of appeal without objection (R. 265 RoP). R. 265.1 RoP also applies mutatis mutandis to the withdrawal of an appeal.

IPPT20250219, UPC CoA, Aarke v Sodastream
Withdrawal of appeal without objection – no cost decision requested – reimbursement of costs. R. 265.1 RoP also applies mutatis mutandis to the withdrawal of an appeal.

IPPT20250124, UPC CoA, DexCom v Abbott - II
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). With the closure of the proceedings, the impugned decision will become ineffective.

IPPT20250124, UPC CoA, DexCom v Abbott - I
IPPT20250124, UPC CoA, DexCom v Abbott - III
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). The applications to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation are admissible since there is no final decision in the actions in view of the pending appeal, and the Court of Appeal is responsible for deciding on the permissibility of the applications for withdrawal. With the closure of the proceedings, the impugned decision will become ineffective. The conditional application to amend the patent is ancillary to the appeal, and withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation has the effect of rendering requests for amendment of the patent ineffective.

IPPT20250115, UPC CoA, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of appeal by party agreement (R. 265 RoP). The court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admission of the applications to withdraw. Court of appeal has the authority, in the event of the admission of the withdrawal, to declare the proceedings terminated in accordance with R. 265.2(a) RoP and to make a decision on costs. No need for cost decision as both parties waive a decision on costs and the application for a cost decision before the Hamburg Local Division has been withdrawn. The withdrawal of the revocation counterclaim has the effect that the requests for amendment of the patent become irrelevant. Against this background, there was no need for a separate authorisation of the withdrawal of the requests for amendment of the patent.

IPPT20250113, UPC CoA, Magna v Valeo
Withdrawal of action upon application by Valeo (holder of preliminary injunction) with the consent of the appellant (Magna) (R. 265 RoP). In view of Magna’s consent, Magna cannot be considered to have a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. No need for a decision on costs: parties have agreed that neither party shall file an application for reimbursement of costs versus the other party.

IPPT20250109, UPC CoA, Dish v AYLO
Partial refund (60%) of court fees in the event of withdrawal of the appeal before the conclusion of the written proceedings. An application for reimbursement of court fees is only provided for in the cases listed in Rules 370.9 and 370.10 RoP. Just as R. 265 RoP applies by analogy in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal (…), R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP applies mutatis mutandis in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal. The Rules of Procedure do not provide for the possibility of a further refund in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal.

IPPT20240705, UPC CoA, 10x v Curio
Withdrawal of appeal from provisional measure with consent (Rule 265 RoP, Rule 151(d) RoP).Rule 265 RoP, applies equally (mutatis mutandis) to an appellant who requests to withdraw its appeal. he Court of Appeal is of the opinion that in case of a withdrawal of an appeal, the appellant shall be considered to be the unsuccessful party who shall bear the costs (as referred to in R.151(d) RoP) incurred in relation to the appeal proceedings. The cost of the appeal incurred by Curio shall be borne by 10x , in an amount to be determined by the Court of First Instance (as requested by both parties)

IPPT20240604, UPC CoA, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Application to withdraw appeal in relation to two (Xiaomi DE and Xiaomi NL) of several defendants rejected (Rule 265 RoP). The Court of Appeal will consider whether those respondents have already been served the Statement of grounds of appeal, whether they want the appeal to be adjudicated in relation to themselves as respondents and whether they have a legitimate interest in adjudication. Main consideration for legitimate interests is the content of the order under appeal and how a withdrawal affects the respondent. Part of the appeal is that Daedalus is requesting that service on Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc is made via Xiaomi DE. Xiaomi DE is a defendant before the Court of First Instance, has responded to the appeal, and will be affected by a reversal of the order of the Court of First Instance since, in that situation, it will be burdened by service on behalf of affiliate companies, which would result in internal responsibilities / liabilities, as it is supposed to inform the other companies of service having been made. Xiaomi NL, who owns all shares in Xiaomi DE, is a defendant before the Court of First Instance, has responded to the appeal, and will indirectly be affected by the outcome of the appeal since it will influence the course and length of proceedings before the Court. The latter aspect applies also in relation to Xiaomi DE.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260218, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense

Withdrawal by party consent. (Rule 265 RoP). Partial withdrawal of infringement action allowed. Rule 265.1 RoP also applies if the action is not withdrawn in its entirety, but only in relation to some of several defendants.

IPPT20260216, UPC CFI, ETRI v Gorenie
Withdrawal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Avago v Telefónica
Withdrawal by party consent (R. 265.2 RoP). Although Rule 265.2(c) of the Rules of Procedure requires a decision on costs, such a decision was unnecessary in this case in view of the parties’ unanimous statement that no decision on costs was required.

IPPT20260205, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Adeia Guides v Disney
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on parties reaching a settlement. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 265.1 RoP, Rule 25 RoP)

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Rentmeister
Partial withdrawal of applicant’s claims for an interim award of costs allowed. (Rule 265 RoP , Article 69 UPCA)

IPPT20250930, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Joint withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation allowed. (Rule. 265 RoP)

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Withdrawal of infringement action by party consent. (Rule 265.1 RoP) Conditions for reimbursement of court fees not met. (Rule 370.9 RoP). When the Court was informed of the settlement, the oral proceedings had already been completed. (Rule 370.9(c) RoP). The termination of the proceedings did not result in significant time savings for the Court.

IPPT20251209, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater Research v Apple Inc.

Application for leave to withdraw infringement action and counterclaim for revocation action allowed with the consent of both parties. (Rule 265 RoP)

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight Technologies
Infringement action dismissed due to insufficient substantiation by the Claimant. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 171 RoP). Inadmissible counterclaim for revocation subject to intra-procedural condition (finding of infringement) (Rule 25 RoP). It can be left open, whether this situation falls within the ambit of amendment or withdrawal (Rule 263 RoP or Rule 265 RoP.) The aspect of costs is not an interest in itself (Article 69 UPCA), the costs of the Counterclaim for revocation on Defendants part are not to be borne by Claimant.

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, CooperSurgical v European Distribution Center Motiva
Withdrawal of infringement action allowed (Rule 265 RoP).Costs incurred by the Defendants cannot be considered “exceptional” within the meaning of Art. 69(2) UPCA.

IPPT20251113, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, AdvanSix v Troy Chemical
Withdrawal of infringement proceedings granted with parties’ consensus. Confidentiality pertaining to confidential settlement information maintained. (Rule 265 RoP , Rule 262.2 RoP)

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, Eyesmatch v Microsoft
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250909, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Himson Engineering
Withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Edwards v Sintec
Confirmation of a settlement (Art. 79 UPCA, R. 365.1 RoP). Certain parts shall be kept confidential at the request of the Parties. No reimbursement of Court fees in case of withdrawal of application for interim measures (R. 265 RoP). R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP is not applicable, either directly or analogously, to applications for interim measures.

IPPT20250929, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250926, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250905, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20290828, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
No reimbursement of Court fees in case of withdrawal of application for interim measures (R. 265 RoP). (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP) is not applicable, either directly or analogously,

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
The security for procedural costs in the amount of EUR 56.000,- provided by Ballinno B.V. is to be released to the Defendants. Parties can use the security provided under R. 158 RoP as means to settle a pending application to cost decision, R. 150 RoP, in analogy to R. 265 RoP.

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Nutricia v Nestlé
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation by party consent (R. 265 RoP). The amount of the infringement action is set at € 250,000. The amount of the counterclaim for revocation is set at € 500,000. (R. 370.6 RoP)

IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Truma v CAN
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250605, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Phoenix v ILME
Withdrawal of infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation (R. 265 RoP). Each party bearing its own costs

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Versah v HaeNaem
Withdrawal of action against second defendant by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, MED-EL v Advanced Bionics
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250507, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ericsson v Asustek

Withdrawal of (i) infringement action against and (ii) counterclaim for revocation by defendant Digital River’s, which is in insolvency proceedings (R. 265 RoP, R. 311 RoP). The Court finds that the principles of fairness and equity require that both Ericsson and Digital River bear their own costs in relation to these withdrawal proceedings. (Article 69(2) UPCA)

IPPT20250429, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ArcelorMitall v Xpeng

Withdrawal permitted (R. 265 RoP,). In the present case, ArcelorMittal’s request for withdrawal is submitted before the close of the written procedure and even before the Defendants filed any brief on the merits. In light of the parties’ applications, the Court sees no objection to permitting the withdrawal in the case at hand. The Court notes that the Claimant has declared not to seek any decision on costs, except concerning the reimbursement of the Court fees under R. 370.9(b) already paid. In the case at hand, only ArcelorMittal has made an application for partial reimbursement

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Atlas v TP-Link
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Pfizer v GlaxoSmithKline
Withdrawal by party agreement, no cost decision, 60% Reimbursement of Court fees (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250411, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Pfizer
Withdrawal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250409, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Withdrawal as suggested (R. 265 RoP) of applications for a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) and for protection of confidential information (R. 262 RoP). No cost reimbursement is warranted in the context of an application pursuant to R. 262 RoP or the withdrawal thereof

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek - I
Withdrawal of action by party consent against insolvent defendant Digital River Ireland (R. 265 RoP, R. 311 RoP). Extension of time period to lodge Statement of defence with two months from the date of service of amended Statement of claim (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250401, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Mann+Hummel v Sotras
Withdrawal of action for interim measures. No decision on costs, 60% court fees refunded (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250321, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP) before closure of the written procedure. No cost decision requested. 60% reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.9 RoP)

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
Amendment of patent and of request in infringement action (R. 30 RoP, R. 263 RoP, R. 265 RoP). Auxiliary requests in reply to statement of defence with regard to infringement action are covered by R. 30 RoP without necessity to formally apply for leave to change the claim or amend the case in accordance with R. 263 RoP. R. 263 RoP does not address amendments of original requests for the infringement action from the original main claim to the original auxiliary request as the new main request, which relates to the mere wording only, not to the substantive content of the request. Even if one considered the transition to be a partial withdrawal of the statement of claim in the meaning of R. 265 RoP, such partial withdrawal would have to be granted under R. 265 RoP. An amendment in response to concerns raised by the Court does not constitute a change or amendment in the meaning of R. 263 RoP if the lack of specificity and the amendment responding to it concern the wording only but not the content of the request. Even if the lack of specificity and the amendment concerned the substance of the requests, it would serve the purpose of removing a potential lack of substantive specificity only after having been addressed by the court. Such amendment would have to be admissible under R. 263 RoP on a regular basis if it does not unduly hinder the defence of defendant.

IPPT20250318, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 40% of court fees (R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250227, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Fapa Vital v Valentis Baltic
Withdrawal of application for provisional measures by party consent (R. 265 RoP) and reimbursement of Court fees (R. 370.9 RoP by analogy)

IPPT20250227, UPC CFI, CD Milan, SharkNinja v Dyson
Withdrawal of revocation action by party consent (R. 265 RoP).

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Dyson v SharkNinja
Withdrawal of proceedings by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250217, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Per Aarsleff v IMS Robotics
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP).

IPPT20250204, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 40% (instead of 60%) of court fees after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b) RoP) The fact that the written procedure was not formally completed by clicking the button provided on the CMS workflow does not change this as the procedure was announced to have been completed months earlier.

IPPT20250203, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 20% of court fees (R. 370.9(b) RoP)

IPPT20250203, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Oppo
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). No reimbursement of court costs as the application was made after the final decision closing the oral proceedings (R. 370.9(b) RoP)

IPPT20250120, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Abbott v Dexcom
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP)

IPPT20250129, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Dexcom
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; no need for a cost decision, 20% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Qualcomm v Shenzen
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Realtek
Withdrawal of request for provisional measures (R. 205 RoP, R. 265 RoP). By analogy reimbursement of 20% of court fees (R. 370.9 RoP)

IPPT20250124, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Withdrawal of counterclaim for revocation and counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Analogous application of Rule 370 RoP to a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer. The UPC is not based on the principle of free proceedings, but the parties contribute for the costs incurred by the Court (Article 36(3) and 70 UPCA)

IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Withdrawal of application for access to pleadings and evidence. No reimbursement of legal costs (R. 265 RoP). There is no legal basis for ordering a member of the public, who has made a request for access to written pleadings and evidence, to reimburse legal costs incurred by the parties to the relevant proceedings when they are consulted by the judge-rapporteur in accordance with Rule 262.1(b) RoP.

IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bentley v Network Systems
Withdrawal of an action (Rule 265 (1) RoP) does not require the express consent of the opposing party. It is sufficient that the party was given an opportunity to comment on the withdrawal and did not object within the time limit set by the Court. In the absence of an application for costs, the Court should not rule on costs and therefore no decision under Rule 265(2)(c) RoP has to be issued.

IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of action, pending appeal (R. 265 RoP). If a case is pending before the court of appeal, the court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admissibility of the applications for withdrawal. However, the situation is different for the request for the determination of the costs to be refunded under Rules 150 RoP. This is currently still pending at first instance, with the result that the court of first instance still has jurisdiction to allow its withdrawal, in accordance with the rules on the procedure for the determination of costs before the Judge-Rapporteur. In any case, Rule 265 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to the proceedings for the determination of costs, even if there is no explicit reference to that rule. Since this is not a measure of the direction of proceedings under Rules 331 et seq. RoP, but a substantive decision within the original jurisdiction of the Judge-Rapporteur under Rule 156.2 RoP, the Judge-Rapporteur also has original and sole jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal.

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of action, pending appeal (R. 265 RoP). If a case is pending before the court of appeal, the court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admissibility of the applications for withdrawal. However, the situation is different for the request for the determination of the costs to be refunded under Rules 150 RoP. This is currently still pending at first instance, with the result that the court of first instance still has jurisdiction to allow its withdrawal, in accordance with the rules on the procedure for the determination of costs before the Judge-Rapporteur. In any case, Rule 265 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to the proceedings for the determination of costs, even if there is no explicit reference to that rule. Since this is not a measure of the direction of proceedings under Rules 331 et seq. RoP, but a substantive decision within the original jurisdiction of the Judge-Rapporteur under Rule 156.2 RoP, the Judge-Rapporteur also has original and sole jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal.

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Realtek
The withdrawal of the application for interim measures possible (R. 265 RoP, R. 212 RoP), since unserved ex parte order of 9 December 2024 prior to final decision upon review of granted ex parte order of 9 December 2024 is not a decision terminating the proceedings as the time limit for review has not yet begun to run. Applicant is to bear the costs of the proceedings for the grant of interim measures as a result of the withdrawal.

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Withdrawal of the provisional measures; each party shall bear its own costs, Security released (R. 265 RoP, R 158 RoP)

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear II
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Netgear v Huawei
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation; each party shall bear its own costs, 40% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Abbott v Dexcom
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, DexCom v Abbott
Withdrawal and cost decision (R. 265.2(c) RoP). When admitting the withdrawal, the Court issues a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5. A request by a party is not required in this respect. The parties' mutual consent may be taken into account in the cost decision.

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Withdrawal parties bearing own costs (R. 265 RoP). No partial reimbursement of court fees applied for (R. 370.RoP). The decision follows the parties’ jointly expressed will. Insofar as R. 265.2 (c) RoP requires a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 RoP, the decision takes into account the agreement reached between the parties. At present, no party has filed an application for a partial reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.11 RoP in conjunction with R. 370.9 (b) (i) RoP), so that no such order could be made.

IPPT20250107, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of proceedings prior to final decision, each party bearing its own costs (R. 265 RoP). According to Rule 265.2 (c) RP, the Court shall also make a decision as to costs in accordance with Part 1 Chapter 5 when admitting the discontinuance of proceedings. No application by the parties is required for this decision; it is to be issued even without one. However, if the parties state that they do not request a decision on the parties' costs, this can be taken into account in the cost decision to be made. This statement is regularly understood to mean that no reimbursement of costs should take place between the parties and that each party should bear their own costs.

IPPT20250107, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, DexCom v Abbott
Withdrawal of infringement and revocation actions, no cost decision, 60% reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). The decision takes into account the agreement reached between the parties.

IPPT20241224, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Withdrawal pursuant to settlement after written proceedings: agreed that each party bears its own costs, 40% refund of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP)

IPPT20241223, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO
Withdrawal after settlement of infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation (R. 265 RoP). Each party bearing its own costs. Each party gets a fee refund of 40 per cent in accordance with R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP.

IPPT20241223, UPC CFI, LD München, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of the case after decision of 30 August 2024 in which patent was declared invalid (R. 265.1(c) RoP) with each party bearing its own cost

IPPT20241213, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ICPillar v ARM
Withdrawal of infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation permitted (R. 265 RoP).The Court fees shall be reimbursed by the Court to the parties by 40% pursuant to R. 370.9 (b) and (e) RoP, i.e. the amount of 44,400 euros to ICPillar and the amount of 8,000 euros to ARM.

IPPT20241211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Withdrawal of the actions in accordance with unanimous wishes of the parties (R. 265 RoP). Decision on pro-rata reimbursement of court costs (R. 370.11 RoP)

IPPT20241024, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
Application for interim measures withdrawn after oral hearing (Article 69 UPCA, R. 265 RoP). No legitimate interest in a ruling on the interim measures. Applicant to bear the legal costs of the defendant.

IPPT20241011, UPC CFI, LD Munich, MSG v EJP
Infringement action and revocation counterclaim after revocation of the patent by Technical Board of Appeal. Withdrawal of infringement action requires a decision on the allocation of legal costs and other expenses Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 265.2(c) RoP). Unnecessary legal costs and other expenses within the meaning of Art. 69(3) UPCA are those that are caused by a measure that was not necessary and/or unsuitable for enforcing or defending a right and that can be separated as such. However, it does not include costs that are (ultimately) unnecessarily incurred due to unsuccessful enforcement or defence as a whole. These are already covered by the basic rule of Art. 69(1) UPCA […]. Whether a severable measure was unnecessary is to be assessed from the ex ante perspective of a reasonable and economically rational party. An objective standard is to be applied. Reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees for the infringement action (R. 370.9 (b) (i) RoP). No need to adjudicate revocation action (R. 360 RoP). Devoid of purpose because of the revocation of the patent in suit by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO of 4 July 2024. The costs of the revocation proceedings shall be borne by the plaintiff. The defendant is to be reimbursed 60% of the court fees paid for the counterclaim in analogous application of R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP.

IPPT20240926, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Withdrawal of action pursuant to party agreement with pro rata reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP).

IPPT20240813, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NST v Texas Instruments
Withdrawal only regarding some defendants possible (Rule 265 RoP). The withdrawal of the action is permitted because the Defendants 1) and 2) have declared their consent. There are no other reasons to continue the proceedings with regard to Defendant 1) and 2). The decision about costs follows the agreement of the Parties involved: Attorney’s fees, costs of court and expenses are borne by the party incurring the same.

IPPT20240809, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aiko Energy v Maxeon Solar
Withdrawal of Statement for Revocation before being served has the same legal effect as if it had not been lodged at all. No legitimate interest for the Defendant to participate (Rule 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 60% of Court fees (Rule 370(9) RoP).

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Semiconductor v Amazon II

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Semiconductor v Amazon
Withdrawal because of out-of-court settlement (Rule 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 60% of Court fees (Rule 370 RoP)

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).

IPPT20231026, UPC CFI, LD München, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
Withdrawal of application for interim measures allowed (Rule 265 RoP)

IPPT20230908, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Ocado v Autostore

Withdrawal of action prior to final decision because of settlement (Rule 265 RoP). Since the action has been withdrawn even before all defendants formally have been served the statement of claim, the Claimant shall be reimbursed court fees by 60 % of EUR 31.000, which is EUR 18.600. (Rule 370(9) RoP).

IPPT20230626, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ocado v Autostore

Withdrawal of action prior to final decision because of settlement (Rule 265 RoP). Ocado reimbursed the amount of EUR 37,800, equal to 60% of the Court fees paid by it in these proceedings (Rule 370(9) RoP).

Advertisements

Rule 265 – Withdrawal

Advertisements