Short Summary
The Local Division Brussels combined an infringement action brought by CRETES NV against HYLER BV with a validity counterclaim brought by HYLER BV against CRETES NV concerning European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. Following a Court-ordered mediation process under Rule 105(5) RoP, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which they notified to the Registry on 29 August 2025. On 7 October 2025, the Court issued a definitive decision confirming the settlement under Rule 365(1) RoP, keeping its contents confidential under Rule 365.2 RoP, and addressing the reimbursement of court fees under Rules 370(9)(c) and 370(9)(e) RoP.
Detailed Summary
The matter was before the Local Division Brussels, combining two related proceedings: an infringement action (ACT_25743/2024) brought by CRETES NV against HYLER BV, and a validity counterclaim (CC_53420/2024) brought by HYLER BV against CRETES NV. CRETES NV is a Belgian company based in Wevelgem, while HYLER BV is a Belgian company based in Meulebeke. The dispute concerned two European patents, EP3993602 and EP4284152, both held by CRETES NV. The proceedings were conducted in Dutch before a full panel consisting of Presiding Judge Samuel Granata, legally qualified judges András Kupecz and Daniel Voß, and technically qualified judge Bernard Ledeboer.
On 24 April 2025, the Court issued an order under Rule 105(5) RoP requesting the parties to inform the Court by 22 August 2025 whether a mediated solution could be reached. This deadline was subsequently extended to 29 August 2025. On 29 August 2025, the Registry received notification from the parties that a settlement agreement had been reached. By letter dated 5 September 2025, CRETES's counsel requested the Court to: (i) confirm the settlement agreement by decision and declare it enforceable as a final decision pursuant to Rule 365.1 RoP; (ii) keep the full content of the settlement confidential from the public pursuant to Rule 365.2 RoP; and (iii) note that the parties had reached agreement on costs, so that no decision under Rule 365.4 RoP was required. Additionally, CRETES requested, under Rule 370(9)(c)(ii) RoP, reimbursement of 40% of the already paid court fees (i.e., 40% of €11,000).
& Analysis
The Court addressed two principal legal questions. First, regarding the confirmation of the settlement, the Court applied Rule 365(1) RoP to confirm the dadingsovereenkomst reached between the parties. Second, regarding the reimbursement of court fees, the Court examined the applicable provisions under Rule 370(9) RoP. The Court held that parties who have reached a settlement agreement, confirmed under Rule 365(1) RoP, are entitled to reimbursement of already paid court fees, taking into account any outstanding court fees, under Rule 370(9)(c) RoP and, subsidiarily, Rule 370(9)(e) RoP. The Court further held that the Rules of Procedure do not limit the Court's discretionary power to provide a pragmatic solution regarding payable and reimbursable court fees in the lead-up to and during a mediation process between the parties.
Final Order & Ruling
The Local Division Brussels issued a definitive decision (Definitieve Beslissing II) on 7 October 2025 confirming the settlement agreement between CRETES NV and HYLER BV pursuant to Rule 365(1) RoP. The Court addressed the reimbursement of court fees in accordance with Rules 370(9)(c) and 370(9)(e) RoP, applying a pragmatic approach to the allocation of court fees given the mediated resolution of the dispute. The settlement's contents were to be kept confidential from the public pursuant to Rule 365.2 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Brussels (BE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Cretes NV vs Hyler BV is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amgen Inc.vsSanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023) brought by Tandem Diabetes Care entities regarding European patent EP 2 196 231, to extend the deadline for filing its defence to revocation. Roche argued that a pending preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction would not be decided before the current deadline expired, making it unreasonable to finalize submissions that might become unnecessary. The Court, presided by Judge Paolo Catallozzi, considered the request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which grants discretionary powers to extend time periods upon reasoned request.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vs1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Fives ECLvsREEL GmbH
This case concerns a claim for damages brought by Fives ECL, SAS against REEL GmbH relating to European Patent No. EP 1 740 740. The plaintiff filed a request for determination of damages on August 8, 2023, following a prior patent infringement proceeding between the parties before the Landgericht Düsseldorf. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the applicable law for lost profit claims, holding that national (German) law applies when the factual circumstances were completed before the Unified Patent Court came into force on June 1, 2023, and that both national law and the UPCA, being based on Directive 2004/48/EC, should yield the same assessment of lost profits.
ONWARD Medical N.V.vsNiche Biomedical, Inc.
This is an appeal concerning an application for interim measures related to alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation. ONWARD Medical N.V., the registered proprietor of the patent, sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Division Munich, which issued an order on October 17, 2025. The appeal addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the assertion of a non-registered claim version in interim proceedings, the admissibility of auxiliary requests under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure, and the determination of intended use under Article 26 EPGÜ for indirect patent infringement.
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.