Short Summary
This order concerns an application by LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. to withdraw their application to intervene in appeal proceedings between LAMA France and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, finding that Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an intervention application under Rule 313, and that no costs decision was necessary.
Detailed Summary
This order, dated August 21, 2025, was issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (Chamber 1, composed of President Klaus Grabinski, Judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé, and Judge Peter Blok) in proceedings UPC_CoA_23/2025 (APL_1991/2025).
The underlying dispute concerned two European patents, EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669, owned by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC). HPDC had sued LAMA France for infringement before the Local Division Paris on October 13, 2023. LAMA filed a counterclaim for nullity on February 11, 2024. By a decision on the merits of November 13, 2024, the Local Division invalidated EP 2 089 230, rejected the nullity claim regarding EP 1 737 669, and held LAMA liable for infringement of EP 1 737 669. LAMA appealed that decision on January 13, 2025 (APL_1991/2025, UPC_CoA_24/2025), seeking annulment of EP 1 737 669 and confirmation of the invalidation of EP 2 089 230.
On July 3, 2025, LAMA requested withdrawal of all its claims against HPDC and accepted the withdrawal of HPDC's claims. By decision of July 24, 2025, the Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal and declared the appeal proceedings closed. On July 22, 2025—two days before that closure decision—LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. (Italian companies represented by Michele De Giorgi of Cantaluppi & Partners srl) had filed an application to intervene in support of LAMA's nullity claims. Upon learning of the July 24 closure decision, LIFE 365 withdrew their intervention application via the CMS on August 13, 2025.
The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal. It reasoned that Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) allows a claimant to withdraw a request before any final decision, after hearing the other party, unless that other party has a legitimate interest in a ruling. While Rule 265 RoP governs withdrawal of a request by the claimant and Rule 313 RoP governs intervention applications by a formally distinct intervening party, the Court held that in the absence of specific provisions on the withdrawal of an intervention application, Rule 265 RoP applies by analogy. The Court further noted that the intervention application had been filed after the withdrawal request in the main proceedings and two days before the closure decision, so there was no 'other party' to be heard within the meaning of Rule 265.1 RoP. Since the proceedings to which the intervention related had been closed and LIFE 365 had not made any application regarding costs, the Court found no need to issue a costs decision under Rule 265.2(c) RoP.
The Court accordingly ordered: (i) the withdrawal of LIFE 365's intervention application was granted and the related procedure was declared closed; (ii) the decision was to be registered; and (iii) no costs decision was necessary.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. – Withdrawal of Intervention Application vs Ex Parte is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Aesculap AGvsShanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which relates to a cutting tool for a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The defendant informed the Registry it would not be represented at the oral hearing and failed to appear, leading the Local Chamber Düsseldorf to decide on the merits as if the defendant had been present. The court granted the application in part, ordering the defendant to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, surrender them to a bailiff, provide detailed information on origin and distribution, and pay provisional costs of EUR 33,335.70.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.vsYunex GmbH – Intervention of Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717. The court granted Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd's application to intervene in support of the defendant Yunex GmbH, as neither party raised objections. The court also addressed the claimant's request for Shenzhen Dianming to provide security for costs of EUR 169,000, giving the intervener 10 days to respond and to file an intervention brief.
3V Sigma S.p.AvsA.G.A. S.r.l. and ACEF Srl
Unified Patent Court decision.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsVantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. With the consent of all parties, the court ordered the stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure based on the plaintiff's application dated April 9, 2025.
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.