Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request to withdraw an appeal concerning patent infringement proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal because the respondent did not object, thereby concluding the appellate phase. Crucially, while the appellant lost the procedural battle and must cover the costs incurred by the respondent, the specific monetary claim for damages was rejected, mandating that cost determination proceed via a separate procedure.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal because the respondent did not object. Consequently, under Article 69(1) EPC, the appellant was deemed unsuccessful in the appeal procedure and must cover the reasonable and proportionate costs advanced by the respondent. However, the specific claim for a fixed amount of damages (€2,693.33) was dismissed, requiring a separate cost procedure.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Luxembourg (LU), this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed a request by multiple defendants for security for legal costs against the US-based claimant. The Court emphasized that while protecting defendants is important, it cannot unduly restrict a claimant's right to an effective remedy. The ruling clarified that the mere fact of being non-EU based is insufficient grounds for imposing security if the claimant demonstrates financial capacity and willingness to cover adverse costs.
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the scope of confidential information protection in an infringement case involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi. The court overturned a previous decision that denied access to Daedalus's US attorneys, recognizing their trustworthiness and necessity for effective litigation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of R. 262A RoP, confirming that professional assistants outside the strict definition of UPC representatives can be granted necessary access.
Per Aarsleff A/SvsIMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
In a procedural decision concerning EP 2 129 956, the Unified Patent Court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This case highlights how UPC proceedings can be concluded amicably through mutual consent, even when complex actions are involved. Practitioners should note that while the main dispute was dropped, the court still managed the procedural aspects, including setting the value in dispute and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
ILME GmbH Elektronische HandelsgesellschaftvsPHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbHvsXSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance rejected Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH's request to amend its infringement action to include the Netherlands. The core issue was not patent validity or infringement itself, but whether the Claimant acted with due diligence after learning that the national part of EP 3 742 231 had been restored in the Netherlands. The Court found that the delay between becoming aware of the restoration and filing the amendment request was unreasonable, setting a clear precedent regarding procedural timeliness in UPC litigation.
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.