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
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.