Short Summary
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiffs withdrew the action and requested a 50% reimbursement of court fees, with the defendants consenting to the withdrawal. The parties had reached an out-of-court settlement under which each side bears its own costs, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Detailed Summary
The dispute involved a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (the plaintiffs), represented by Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte, against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG (trading as A. MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS DEUTSCHLAND), and A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU (the defendants), represented by Bird & Bird LLP. The patent at issue was European Patent No. EP 1 962 668. The case was assigned to Panel 1 of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, presided over by Presiding Judge Thomas, with legally qualified Judge Dr. Schumacher as rapporteur and legally qualified Judge Kupecz. The language of proceedings was German.
On December 22, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiffs submitted a filing on March 5, 2026, withdrawing the action and requesting reimbursement of 50% of the court fees pursuant to Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants consented to the withdrawal of the action. The plaintiffs further declared that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement under which each party would bear its own costs and no cost reimbursement between the parties would occur, making a cost decision unnecessary. The defendants confirmed that no cost applications would be made.
& Analysis: The court found that the decision followed the unanimously expressed will of the parties. Although Rule 265.2(c) of the Rules of Procedure ordinarily requires a cost decision pursuant to Part 1, Chapter 5 of the Rules of Procedure, the court held that such a decision was unnecessary here given the parties' unanimous declaration that no cost decision was needed, citing the precedent in case UPC_CFI_505/2024 (order of January 24, 2025, DexCom v. Abbott). The court further reasoned that the partial reimbursement of court fees was appropriate based on the plaintiffs' corresponding application and was grounded in Rules 370.9(b)(i) and 370.11 of the Rules of Procedure.
Final Order & Ruling: The court ordered that (1) the withdrawal of the action be permitted upon the plaintiffs' application and with the defendants' consent; (2) the proceedings be declared terminated; (3) the decision be entered in the register; and (4) a partial reimbursement of court fees in the amount of 50% be granted to the plaintiffs.
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 a.o. vs A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Align Technology, Inc.vsAngelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
Seoul Viosys Co., LtdvsLaser Components SAS
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/02/2024 DEMANDEUR : 1) Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 65-16, Sandan-ro 163beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - KR Représenté par Pauline Debré DÉFENDEUR :
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.vsMicron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the timing of new arguments raised by the Defendants in their Rejoinder in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047. The Claimant sought to have the Defendants' new arguments regarding the Z01M die prior use right and the 'internal mode' of the Y2BM die disregarded as belated, or alternatively to be permitted to file further written pleadings. The Düsseldorf Local Division deferred the decision on whether to reject the new arguments until during or after the oral hearing, but granted the Claimant the opportunity to respond in writing to the new arguments by 17 September 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)vsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Nokia Solutions and Network OyvsZhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action against numerous entities within the Geely corporate group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, Nokia requested, with the consent of the defendants, the admission of the withdrawal of the infringement action. The defendants in turn requested, with the consent of Nokia, the withdrawal of their invalidity counterclaim, with the matter concerning the admission of the withdrawal and the reimbursement of court fees.
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.