Short Summary
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.