Short Summary
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against three Renault entities before the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 509 263 B1. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
Detailed Summary
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, a Singapore-based company, filed a patent infringement action on 20 February 2026 against three Renault group entities: Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, and Renault S.A.S. The action concerned European Patent EP 3 509 263 B1 and was brought before the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court. The plaintiff was represented by Dr. Ulrich Blumenröder of Grünecker PartG mbB, while the defendants were represented by Felix Rödiger, Jonas Smeets, and Fabian Saupe of Bird & Bird LLP. The language of the proceedings was German, and the presiding panel consisted of Presiding Judge Sabine Klepsch, Legally Qualified Judge and Rapporteur Dr. Stefan Schilling, and Legally Qualified Judge Dr. Tatyana Zhilova.
Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit by submission dated 12 May 2026, stating that the parties had reached a settlement under which each party would bear its own costs. The plaintiff applied under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the court to permit the withdrawal and declare the proceedings terminated, and, to the extent necessary under Rule 265.2(c), to order that each party bear its own costs. By a further submission dated 13 May 2026, the plaintiff additionally requested, pursuant to Rules 370.9(b)(i) and 370.11, an order for the reimbursement of 50% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff. The defendants consented to the withdrawal by submission dated 12 May 2026, confirming that a cost decision was unnecessary because the parties had agreed each would bear its own costs. By submission dated 18 May 2026, the defendants also raised no objections to the requested reimbursement of court fees.
& Analysis
The court reasoned that its decision followed the unanimously expressed will of the parties. To the extent that Rule 265.2(c) required a cost decision under Part 1, Chapter 5 of the Rules of Procedure, the court gave effect to the agreement reached between the parties. The order for the partial reimbursement of court fees was based on Rule 370.11 in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure.
Final Order & Ruling
The court ordered: (1) the withdrawal of the action was permitted at the plaintiff's request and with the defendants' consent; (2) the proceedings were declared terminated; (3) the decision was to be entered in the register; (4) no cost decision was necessary; (5) the dispute value was set at EUR 1,000,000; and (6) the Registrar was instructed to refund 50% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff in respect of the action as soon as possible. The court further noted that the case file could be closed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Hamburg (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited vs Renault Deutschland AG a.o. 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.