Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision concerning an application by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (now trading as IPG Photonics GmbH & Co. KG) to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, finding that TRUMPF Laser UK Limited had no legitimate interest in a court decision since the appeal had not yet been formally served. IPG Laser had filed the appeal solely to preserve the statutory deadline and did not intend to pursue it substantively.
Detailed Summary
This case concerned an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 951 625. The appellant and defendant in the main proceedings was IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG, now trading under the name IPG Photonics GmbH & Co. KG, based in Burbach, Germany. The respondent and plaintiff in the main proceedings was TRUMPF Laser UK Limited, based in Southampton, United Kingdom. The patent in dispute was EP 2 951 625. The panel consisted of Klaus Grabinski (President of the Court of Appeal), Peter Blok (legally qualified judge), and Emmanuel Gougé (Rapporteur and legally qualified judge). The proceedings were conducted in German.
TRUMPF Laser had sued IPG Laser before the Local Division Mannheim for alleged infringement of the patent in suit. IPG Laser filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. On 24 February 2026, the Local Division Mannheim issued a decision dismissing the revocation counterclaim and ordering IPG Laser to cease manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or possessing optical devices in Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, and/or Romania, based on claim 6 of the patent (direct infringement). The case numbers before the Court of First Instance were UPC_CFI_735/2024 and UPC_CFI_224/2025.
On 24 April 2026, IPG Laser filed an appeal against this decision, seeking to set aside the infringement ruling and to have the patent revoked in its entirety with effect for Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, and Romania. Subsequently, by submission dated 4 May 2026, IPG Laser filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. IPG Laser explained that the appeal had been filed solely to preserve the statutory deadline and was not intended for substantive pursuit of the remedy. IPG Laser requested that the withdrawal be permitted, that all court fees be refunded (or alternatively 50% of the fees paid), and that the appeal proceedings be declared terminated. IPG Laser also requested that no cost decision be made.
& Analysis
The Court of Appeal applied Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that a plaintiff may request withdrawal of the action as long as no final decision has been rendered. The Court noted that this provision applies mutatis mutandis to an appellant requesting withdrawal of an appeal, citing its earlier decision of 5 July 2024 in case UPC_CoA_234/2024 (10x - Curio). The Court further noted that a withdrawal request is not permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the court deciding on the action.
The Court found that, at the time the withdrawal request was filed, the appeal was still being examined for compliance with formal requirements and had not yet been served on the respondent. Consequently, TRUMPF Laser had no legitimate interest in having the court decide on the appeal, and there was no need to hear TRUMPF Laser on the appellant's withdrawal request.
Final Order & Ruling
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals upon IPG Laser's application. The text of the decision appears to be cut off at the final paragraph, but the operative effect was that the appeal proceedings were terminated, with the Court having accepted IPG Laser's withdrawal request and addressed the related requests regarding fee refunds and costs.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG vs TRUMPF Laser UK Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.vsAMGEN, INC
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP2590626. The primary issue is GSK's application under Rule 263 to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products.' Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLCvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 726 883, in which the Claimant QIAGEN Sciences, LLC sought an extension of time to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation. The Defendants had filed a confidentiality application alongside their defence, delaying the Claimant's access to unredacted documents. The court granted the extension, with the Defendants' consent, extending the deadlines to 15 September 2025.
- ILLUMINA, INC.vs- Element Biosciences, Inc - Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITEDvsMAARS HOLDING B.V., MAARS PROJECTEN B.V., MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V., MAARS FRANCE
This case concerned European Patent EP 1 651 838, titled 'Glazing System,' owned by City Glass and Glazing Private Limited, an Indian company. The patent, which expired on 14 July 2024, related to a self-locking glazing mechanism using aluminium profiles and grooved rubber beading. The proceedings involved both an infringement action by City Glass against several Maars entities and a counterclaim by the Maars parties. The decision, delivered on 29 August 2025, addressed issues relating to the expired patent, a final cost decision, and a security deposit under Rule 3(c) UPCA.
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.