Dismissed
at Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
6 dismissed decisions from Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat.
Dismissed Decisions
6 cases | Page 1 of 1
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing patent litigation when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. IMI Hydronic Engineering sought to revoke EP3812870, while Belparts counterclaimed for infringement. The Court granted permission for both actions to be withdrawn, effectively closing the proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that if no final decision has been rendered and all parties agree on the withdrawal without objection, the court will permit the case closure under Rule 265.1 RoP.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In this case, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning patent EP3812870. While the proceedings progressed through interim conferences and even faced potential oral hearings, both parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Court of First Instance subsequently permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the infringement counterclaim, declaring the case closed. This decision highlights the practical reality that settlements often supersede ongoing litigation in the UPC framework.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited sought to withdraw a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The court granted the request, emphasizing that Rule 265(1) of the RoP does not mandate express consent from the respondent, provided they are given an opportunity to comment and do not object. This decision provides clarity on procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC framework.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated proceedings at the UPC to annul a decision made by the European Patent Office regarding patent EP3516914. However, the EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in line with Qualcomm's request. Consequently, the Court of First Instance closed the action without further deliberation or consultation of the parties. This case highlights the procedural mechanism within the UPC for handling actions against decisions of the EPO when those decisions are corrected by the Office.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
In a procedural decision, the UPC dismissed a revocation action brought by Aiko Energy against Maxeon Solar concerning EP 3065184. The claimant withdrew the claim before it was formally served upon the defendant. The court confirmed that this withdrawal had no legal effect on the defendant and closed the proceedings accordingly. Furthermore, the Claimant was granted reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees paid.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.***
This UPC decision addressed a revocation action concerning EP 3 170 639 B1, which ultimately became moot when the patent holder voluntarily withdrew the patent. The court analyzed the equitable distribution of costs, noting that it is generally unfair to charge costs to a patent owner who withdraws immediately upon seeing relevant prior art presented in the lawsuit. Despite this finding regarding equity, the claimant was ordered to bear the procedural costs.
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.