Short Summary
IPG Laser appealed a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that had dismissed its counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 951 625 and found it liable for direct infringement. Shortly after filing the appeal, IPG Laser applied to withdraw it, requesting full or partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (€21,145) under Rule 370.9(b) RoP.
Detailed Summary
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited brought an action against IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (now trading as IPG Photonics GmbH & Co. KG) before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European patent EP 2 951 625. IPG Laser filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. By decision of 24 February 2026, the Mannheim Local Division dismissed the counterclaim for revocation and, among other things, ordered IPG Laser to refrain from making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or storing for those purposes optical devices in Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, and/or Romania (Claim 6, direct infringement).
On 24 April 2026, IPG Laser filed an appeal (PR-UPC-CoA-58/2026 and PR-UPC-CoA-59/2026) seeking to set aside the infringement ruling and to revoke the patent in its entirety with effect for those same countries. In a pleading dated 4 May 2026, IPG Laser applied to withdraw the appeal, stating that it had been filed solely to meet the statutory time limit and was not intended to be pursued on the merits. IPG Laser requested that the withdrawal be permitted, that the full court fees—or alternatively 50%—be reimbursed, that no cost decision be issued, and that the appeal proceedings be declared closed.
The Court of Appeal, applying Rule 265.1 RoP by analogy to appellants, held that the withdrawal could be permitted because, at the time the application was filed, the appeal was still being examined for formal requirements and had not yet been served on TRUMPF Laser. Accordingly, TRUMPF Laser had no legitimate interest in obtaining a decision on the merits and did not need to be heard on the withdrawal application.
On the question of costs, the Court noted that although Rule 265.2(c) RoP provides for a cost decision, none was necessary because IPG Laser had declined such a decision and TRUMPF Laser had not incurred any costs in the appeal proceedings (the statement of appeal had not been served). The request for full reimbursement of court fees was rejected as unfounded. Under Rule 370.9(b) RoP, where an action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure, the party liable for court fees is to be reimbursed 50% of those fees. The Court held that the brevity of the proceedings was irrelevant to this calculation. The auxiliary request for 50% reimbursement was therefore granted, entitling IPG Laser to reimbursement of €21,145 (50% of the total appeal fee of €42,290).
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals, declared the proceedings closed, ordered the decision to be entered in the register, found that no cost decision was required, ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to IPG Laser, directed the Registry to reimburse €21,145, and dismissed the remainder of the requests. The decision was issued on 1 July 2026 by a panel consisting of Klaus Grabinski (President of the Court of Appeal), Peter Blok, and Emmanuel Gougé (judge-rapporteur).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim Local Division. 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
NJOY Netherlands BVvsVMR Products LLC
Unified Patent Court decision.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately revoked the patent in all Contracting Member States, finding that the claimed subject-matter lacked novelty over prior art and that the proposed amendments added matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. The infringement action was dismissed, and FUJIFILM was ordered to bear the costs.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbHvsSWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Nederland N.V., Renault S.A.S., and Dacia S.A.vsAvago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application by the Defendants (Renault group entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action based on EP3720095. The Claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object to the application. The Court granted the request, changing the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
Dolby International ABvsASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against several ASUS entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for invalidity filed by certain ASUS defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its main action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaim. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides.
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.