Short Summary
Eyesmatch Ltd filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 936 439 against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the action after the parties settled the dispute out of court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) to the Claimant.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Eyesmatch Ltd (a British Virgin Islands company) against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, concerning European Patent No. 2 936 439. The action was filed on 2 June 2025.
Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action by brief dated 5 September 2025 and requested reimbursement of 60% of the court fees. The Claimant stated that the parties had settled the legal dispute out of court, agreeing that each party would bear their own legal costs and other expenses, with the Claimant bearing the court fees. The Claimant took the position that a cost decision was therefore unnecessary.
On 8 September 2025, the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal of the infringement action. They also confirmed that neither Defendant would request any reimbursement of costs, meaning that there was no need for a cost decision.
The Court, presided over by Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified judge Dr Schumacher (acting as judge-rapporteur), and legally qualified judge Granata, issued its decision on 12 September 2025. The Court reasoned that the decision followed the parties' jointly expressed will. Although Rule 265.2(c) RoP provides that a decision on costs is to be taken in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5, the Court held that no such decision was required in this case due to the parties' declarations, citing the Court of Appeal's order in UPC_CoA_569/2024 (DexCom v. Abbott).
The order to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees was based on Rules 370.11 and 370.9(b)(i) RoP. The Court ordered: (1) the withdrawal of the infringement action was allowed at the Claimant's application and with the Defendants' consent; (2) the proceedings were declared closed; (3) the decision was to be entered in the register; (4) no cost decision was required; (5) the Registrar was directed to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) as soon as possible; and (6) the value in dispute for the infringement action was set at EUR 2,000,000.
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 Eyesmatch Ltd. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524, and the Vivo defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the parties reached a settlement agreement, both sides filed withdrawal applications pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure on 13 August 2026. The Paris Local Division permitted the withdrawal of both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, closed the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Establishment Labs S.A.vsGC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Sibio Technology LimitedvsAbbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This appeal concerned a request by Sibio Technology Limited for further exchanges of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in its appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision dismissing its revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 831 283 B1 owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Sibio argued that further pleadings were needed because Abbott, in its Statement of response, maintained six auxiliary requests as an alternative to upholding the appealed judgment. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the first instance proceedings and automatically form part of the appeal proceedings under Rules 222.1 and 222.2 RoP, requiring no refiling.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Hamburg (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-11-03) under reference UPC-001683, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited appeared in dispute with Tesla Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Align Technology, Inc.vsAngelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted the application in part, issuing a preliminary injunction against five of the six defendants regarding the 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2 with 'Live Now' function) and aligners manufactured accordingly, but rejected the application against the European holding company defendant. The defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product and EUR 400,000 in provisional cost reimbursement.
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.