BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v. Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.

UPC-000122

1 The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1048/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16/01/2026 regarding: withdrawal Claimant 1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH Represented by Tobias Wuttke Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich, Germany

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
The Hague (NL) Local Division
Case Number
UPC-000122
Judge(s)
FULL PANEL Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge; Samuel Granata LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS

Detailed Summary

1

The Hague - Local Division

UPC-CFI-1048/2025

of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court

issued on 16/01/2026

regarding: withdrawal

Claimant

1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH

Represented by Tobias Wuttke

Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich,

Germany

Defendant

1) Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.

Represented by Alexandros

c/ Larrano 7, San Lorenzo de El Escorial

Stavrinadis

28200 Madrid, Spain

PATENT AT ISSUE

Patent no.

Proprietor/s

EP4146335

BTL Healthcare Technologies a.s.

2

DECIDING JUDGE

FULL PANEL

Presiding judge

Edger Brinkman

Judge-rapporteur

Margot Kokke

Legally qualified judge

Samuel Granata

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English

Subject-matter of the proceedings:

Infringement proceedings

POINTS AT ISSUE AND GROUNDS

1. BTL Medizintechnik GmbH request withdrawal of their infringement action pursuant to

R.265.1 RoP because they have reached a settlement. They request the court to declare

the proceedings closed.

2. By letter of 14 January 2026 Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. confirmed

that they consent to the withdrawal as filed by BTL Medizintechnik GmbH. Therefore,

all parties consent to the withdrawal.

3. Parties confirmed that a cost decision is not required.

4. The application is admissible as there is no final decision in the action. The request will

be granted. The registry shall be instructed to register the closure of the action in the

register

ORDER

The court:

A. allows the withdrawal of infringement action UPC-CFI-1048/2025

B. declares those proceedings closed;

C. orders that this decision shall be entered on the register (R.265.2(b));

D. declares that there is no need for cost decisions.

3

Brinkman,

presiding judge

Granata,

legally qualified judge

Kokke,

judge rapporteur

For the Deputy Registrar,

clerk

Samuel Rocco

M Granata

Digitally signed by Samuel

Rocco M Granata

Date: 2026.01.15 16:08:20

+01'00'

Edger Frank BRINKMAN

Digitally signed by Edger

Frank BRINKMAN

Date: 2026.01.15 16:22:53

+01'00'

Noua

Mohammed

Digitally signed by Noua

Mohammed

Date: 2026.01.15 16:40:57

+01'00'

Margot

Elsa KOKKE

Digitally signed by

Margot Elsa KOKKE

Date: 2026.01.15

17:08:00 +01'00'

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague (NL) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in BTL Medizintechnik GmbH vs Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentUPC-000803

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsRespondent

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.

patentUPC-001122

10x Genomics, Inc.vsRespondent

In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.

patentUPC-000681

TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLCvsRespondent

This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant sought to file a further written pleading to respond to new arguments raised by the defendants in their rejoinder, but the judge-rapporteur dismissed this request on 1 April 2025. The claimant then filed an application for review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order and rejected the application for panel review, finding the request for a further written submission unfounded.

patentUPC-001337

Motorola Mobility LLCvsRespondent

1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_41/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 780 758 delivered on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim: 30/01/2024 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Defendant

patentUPC-001394

Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KGvsRespondent

This order concerns an application by Apple entities (the appellants and defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's appeal response under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involves Apple's appeal of the Court of First Instance President's order dated June 18, 2024, which rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2263098). The Court of Appeal rejected the acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in acceleration did not outweigh Ona Patents' interest in orderly proceedings.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call