Short Summary
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Detailed Summary
This case was decided by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 16 February 2026, under case number UPC_CFI_716/2025. The claimant was Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), a Korean entity represented by its president Mr. Bang Seung Chan, based in Daejeon, Korea. The defendants were six entities: Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH (Germany), ATAG Nederland B.V. (Netherlands), Gorenje gospodinjski aparati, d.o.o (Slovenia), Hisense Visual Technology Co, Ltd (China), Hisense France SAS (France), and Hisense Italia S.r.l. (Italy). The patent in suit was European Patent No. EP 3 258 692 B1. The proceedings were conducted in English, and the panel consisted of Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr. Thom (acting as judge-rapporteur), and legally qualified Judge Johansson.
The subject of the decision was Rule 265 RoP – Withdrawal. Due to a settlement reached between the parties, the claimant submitted an application to withdraw the infringement action against all defendants. The claimant also requested confirmation that it must pay the court fees, that each party bears its own costs (with no requests for cost compensation), and that 60% of the court fees be reimbursed to the claimant. The defendants consented to the motion to withdraw the action as well as to the claimant's motion regarding the costs.
The court noted that the decision followed the parties' jointly expressed will and that no cost decision was required due to the parties' declarations. The order to reimburse the claimant 60% of the court fees was based on Rules 370.11 and 370.9(b)(i) RoP, as the action had been settled before the closure of the written procedure.
The court ordered: (I) permission for the withdrawal of the action and declared the proceedings closed; (II) entry of the decision in the Register; (III) no need for a cost decision since all parties agreed to bear their own costs; (IV) the value in dispute set at €2,500,000; and (V) reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) vs Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH 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.