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
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.