Short Summary
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
Detailed Summary
This case concerned European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 and was heard before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court under case number UPC_CFI_468/2024. The Claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (based in Belgium), filed a patent infringement action against 14 Defendants, all entities within the Pfizer group located across various European jurisdictions including Belgium, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and Luxembourg.
On 5 August 2024, the Claimant filed the patent infringement action. Eight of the fourteen Defendants (Defendants 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13) filed counterclaims for revocation on 14 November 2024. By order of 4 March 2025, the counterclaim for revocation was referred to the Milan Central Division.
Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant, by brief dated 3 April 2025, withdrew the infringement action and requested the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees. The Claimant also stated that a cost decision was not requested, or alternatively, that each party should bear its own costs. On 7 April 2025, the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal of the infringement action and informed the Court that the parties had agreed there should be no decision as to costs, or alternatively, no costs decision against either party. The Defendants also stated they did not object to the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
The Court noted 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 decision on costs was required since both parties had declared that a cost decision was not requested, 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; (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 201,600) as soon as possible; and (6) the value in dispute for the infringement action was set at more than EUR 50,000,000.
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 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA vs Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)vsHisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
This is a rectification decision issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 27 April 2026 in case UPC_CFI_716/2025 concerning European Patent EP 2 258 692 B1. The Court corrected a calculation error in Section V of its earlier order dated 16 February 2026, finding that 60% of the court fees amounted to €18,600 rather than the previously stated €14,400.
Ocado Innovation LimitedvsAutostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP
Unified Patent Court decision.
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsJuul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against five European patents owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., but mistakenly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in the statements for revocation. The Court of First Instance rejected Juul Labs International's preliminary objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor of the patents.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Procedural order in infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4070727. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., as the patent proprietor, sought alignment of the dates for the Statement of Defense, which had diverged for the two defendants due to different service dates. The court ordered both defendants to file their Statement of Defense on 14 March 2024, with the terms for reply and rejoinder adjusted accordingly.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbHvsNetwork System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for an order requiring the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), to provide security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the defendants had failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order against NST in the United States, and that NST's patent portfolio acquired from Philips constituted seizable intangible assets.
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.