Executive Summary
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the revocation of EP 3 498 115. This was possible because the opposing party, NJOY Netherlands B.V., consented to the withdrawal. While the proceedings were closed, the court upheld the general principle that the withdrawing appellant is considered unsuccessful and must cover the costs incurred by the successful party (NJOY) for the appeal stage.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal because the opposing party (NJOY) consented, meaning NJOY did not have a legitimate interest in the action being decided. Despite the withdrawal, the general rule applies that the appellant who withdraws is considered unsuccessful and must bear the costs for the appeal proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Luxembourg (LU), this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V.
In this case, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning patent EP3812870. While the proceedings progressed through interim conferences and even faced potential oral hearings, both parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Court of First Instance subsequently permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the infringement counterclaim, declaring the case closed. This decision highlights the practical reality that settlements often supersede ongoing litigation in the UPC framework.
Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order in the Fujifilm v. Kodak infringement case sets the stage for a complex oral hearing at the UPC Mannheim Local Division. The court identified significant legal hurdles, particularly concerning retroactivity and the choice of law (UPCA vs. national law) for infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force. Furthermore, the claimant must clarify precisely which countries are subject to the sought remedies. These points underscore the high level of complexity involved in cross-border patent litigation under the new UPC framework.
Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
In a procedural order concerning an infringement claim, Adeia Guides Inc. successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for a deadline extension. The request was made due to late-filed exhibits in the ongoing litigation against various Disney entities. This ruling ensures that both parties have adequate time to respond to complex legal filings in this high-stakes patent dispute.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsAsustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division case involved a complex situation where an infringement action and associated revocation counterclaims were partially withdrawn due to one defendant's insolvency. The Court allowed the withdrawal against the insolvent party (Digital River) but maintained the proceedings against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato). Crucially, the court applied principles of fairness and equity, ruling that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs related to these withdrawals, despite conflicting claims.
Visibly Inc.vsEasee B.V., Easee Holding B.V., and managing director
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect related to a security for costs order issued by the CFI in an infringement action. The court found that the initial order contained manifest errors, specifically regarding the legal basis for requiring security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. By granting suspensive effect to both Easee's appeals, the UPC ensured that the status quo would be maintained pending a full review of the underlying issues.
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.