Short Summary
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 642 632 after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Nera Innovations Ltd. had appealed the Local Division Hamburg's decision dismissing its infringement action and partially revoking the patent, while Xiaomi had cross-appealed the counterclaim decision. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal requests and made no cost applications, leading the court to declare the proceedings terminated.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 642 632 and involves Nera Innovations Ltd., based in Dublin, Ireland, as the plaintiff/appellant, and four Xiaomi entities (Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) as the defendants/counterclaimants. The proceedings were conducted in German before Panel 3 of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge Ulrike Voß.
The underlying first-instance decision was rendered by the Local Division Hamburg on July 10, 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 revoked the patent in suit insofar as its subject matter extended beyond claim 1 as amended according to auxiliary requests 1 and 2.
Nera Innovations filed its appeal against the infringement decision on July 30, 2025 (UPC-CoA-692/2025), while the Xiaomi defendants filed their appeal against the counterclaim decision on September 10, 2025 (UPC-CoA-854/2025). The substantive disputes therefore concerned both the finding of non-infringement and the partial revocation of the patent.
However, on July 31, 2026 and August 3, 2026 respectively, both the plaintiff and the 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 regarding costs.
& Analysis
The Court of Appeal applied 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. The court noted that this provision also applies to the withdrawal of appeals, citing its prior decision in UPC-CoA-895/2026 and UPC-CoA-896/2025 (Black Sheep/HL Display, March 6, 2026).
The court found no opposing interests of the respective respondents to the withdrawals, noting that the parties had informed the court of their out-of-court settlement. Although Rule 265.2(c) provides that a cost decision is to be made pursuant to Part 1, Chapter 5, the court determined that no cost decision was necessary because both parties agreed not to make any cost applications.
Final Order & Ruling
The Court of Appeal ordered: (I) the withdrawal of the appeals is permitted; (II) the proceedings are declared terminated; and (III) the decision is to be entered in the register. The order was issued on August 3, 2026, and digitally signed 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 854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland vs COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Headwater Research LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
Lindal Dispenser GmbHvsRocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the withdrawal of an appeal and reimbursement of court fees. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw the appeal before the Statement of Response was lodged, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to the appellant, Lindal Dispenser GmbH.
Maxell, Ltd.vsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2061230. The court dismissed Samsung's request to extend the deadline for filing its rejoinder/reply submissions and admitted Maxell's 44 auxiliary requests into the proceedings. The court found the number of auxiliary requests reasonable given the large number of invalidity attacks asserted by Samsung and the manageable number of new features actually introduced.
Motorola Mobility LLCvs1) ASUSTek Computer Inc 2) ASUS Computer GmbH 3) ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 3 972 309, brought an infringement action against ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited before the Local Chamber Munich. The patent concerns a method and apparatus for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting the security keys used in user equipment communicating with two cell groups. The defendants filed a counterclaim. The case was heard orally on July 9, 2025, and the decision was issued on October 10, 2025, by a panel of four judges.
Bhagat Textile EngineersvsOerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
1 Riferimento n. UPC_CoA_12/2025 APL_366/2025 DECISIONE della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti del 9 dicembre 2025 sulla concessione del risarcimento dei danni e delle spese NOTE (i) Ai sensi dell'articolo 68(1) Accordo TUB, la Corte, su richiesta della pa
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.