Settled Decisions
5 cases | Page 1 of 1
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning patent EP 3 655 346. Both parties agreed to close the proceedings, and the court granted the request for reimbursement of court fees. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach a mutual agreement to terminate litigation.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
In a significant case involving HPDC and LAMA, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed simultaneous requests to withdraw claims in an ongoing infringement and revocation dispute. Following mutual agreements and the absence of final judgments, the court granted both parties' withdrawals. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be closed amicably before a definitive ruling is reached.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural aspects of a revocation action and its associated counterclaim for revocation. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw both actions, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Crucially, the court clarified that appeals against these two distinct actions require separate court fees, regardless of how the CFI combined the decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal costs based on specific procedural rules.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision confirmed a settlement reached between Plant-e and Arkyne regarding the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 137 782. While the core dispute was settled, the Court issued a significant ruling on procedural matters, specifically granting Arkyne a reimbursement of 60% of its court fees. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules governing settlements and fee refunds.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care appealed a decision from the Central Division Paris regarding the revocation of EP 2 196 231, which covered an ambulatory drug infusion system. Before the Court of Appeal could rule on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement. The UPC Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed this settlement, formally terminating all proceedings related to the patent.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.