Short Summary
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned cross-appeals regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed the infringement action and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the proceedings terminated.
Detailed Summary
This matter before the Court of Appeal (Berufungsgericht) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) involved consolidated proceedings UPC-CoA-692/2025 and UPC-CoA-854/2025 concerning European Patent EP 2 642 632. The plaintiff/appellant, Nera Innovations Ltd. of Dublin, Ireland, was represented by Dr. Thomas Adam of Peterreins Schley Patent- und Rechtsanwälte. The defendants/appellants, comprising Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, were represented by Eva Acker of Freshfields. The proceedings were conducted in German and presided over by Judge Ulrike Voß of Panel 3.
The underlying decision under appeal was issued by the Local Division Hamburg on 10 July 2025 in cases UPC-CFI-173/2024 (infringement action) and UPC-CFI-424/2024 (counterclaim for revocation and request for amendment of the patent). In that decision, the Local Division dismissed the infringement action and declared the patent-in-suit invalid to the extent that its subject matter extended beyond claim 1 in the version of auxiliary requests 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the infringement decision on 30 July 2025 (UPC-CoA-692/2025), while the defendants filed an appeal against the revocation counterclaim decision on 10 September 2025 (UPC-CoA-854/2025).
On 31 July 2026 and 3 August 2026 respectively, the plaintiff and defendants filed submissions requesting the withdrawal of their respective appeals, stating that they had reached an out-of-court settlement. Both parties consented to the other party's withdrawal request and made no applications for costs. The Court of Appeal, applying Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure, which permits a plaintiff to request withdrawal of an action as long as no final decision has been rendered and which also applies to withdrawal of appeals, allowed the withdrawal of both appeals. The court found no opposing interests of the respective respondents, noting that the parties had informed it of an out-of-court settlement. Although Rule 265.2(c) provides for a cost decision under Part 1, Chapter 5, no such decision was necessary because both parties agreed not to make any cost applications.
The Court of Appeal ordered: (I) the withdrawal of the appeals is permitted; (II) the proceedings are declared terminated; and (III) this decision is to be entered in the Register. The order was issued on 3 August 2026 by Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Court of Appeal. Understanding the court's reasoning in Nera Innovations Ltd. vs Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.