Executive Summary
This UPC decision addresses a motion regarding the partial refund of court fees following multiple settlements in an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. Despite reaching agreements, the claimants and respondents sought fee refunds based on procedural rules. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied these requests, holding that because the oral proceedings had already concluded when the settlements were reached, the criteria for reimbursement under UPC Rules could not be satisfied. This ruling emphasizes the court's focus on administrative efficiency and the actual workload generated by complex settlement procedures.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court ruled that since the parties concluded their proceedings through settlements, the conditions for fee reimbursement under Rule 370.9 (c) VerfO were not met because the oral proceedings had already been completed at the time of settlement. Furthermore, the complexity and timing of the multiple separate settlements increased the administrative burden on the court, leading to the denial of the claims.
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 F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG vs Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsBhagat Textile Engineers
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division granted a motion for confidentiality concerning sensitive financial and commercial information provided during cost documentation. The Court found that because the respondent did not object, it was permissible to limit access to these 'redacted' documents exclusively to the respondent's legal counsel. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the Unified Patent Court system to protect trade secrets while maintaining procedural fairness.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.vsYunex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the requirement for a third-party intervenor to provide a financial security deposit in an infringement case. The claimant sought to compel Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., who was involved as a third-party intervener, to post EUR 169,000.00. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that while the intervener is treated like a party for cost purposes, ordering security deposits in such circumstances is not warranted.
Topsoe A/SvsSYPOX GmbH
Topsoe A/S sought provisional measures, specifically an order for inspection and evidence gathering at the premises of SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, ahead of a potential infringement lawsuit. The patent in question covers hydrogen production using steam methane reforming with an electrically heated catalyst bed. Although Topsoe successfully initiated the process, the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain preliminary investigative measures within the UPC framework.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsVantiva SA
In a procedural ruling before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH withdrew its infringement claim against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Simultaneously, the defendants successfully withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent EP 3 353 901. The court accepted both withdrawals, declaring the proceedings terminated. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to a swift conclusion in complex UPC litigation, focusing on mutual consent rather than substantive merits.
Gowling WLGvsBoehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
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.