Short Summary
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against multiple defendants including Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities concerning EP 2 618 514. The Claimant requested permission to withdraw the infringement action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Local Division Hamburg permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
Detailed Summary
Hamburg – Local Division
UPC_CFI_1661/2025
of the Court of First Instance
of the Unified Patent Court
delivered on 03/06/2026
PARTIES:
Sun Patent Trust, 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor, 10022 – New York - USA,
Claimant,
Representatives:
Attorneys-at-law
and
UPC
Representatives
of
BARDEHLE
PAGENBERG
Partnerschaft
mbB
Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte,
Lead Attorney-at-law Dr. Volkmar Henke
Lead Patent attorney Tobias Kaufmann
1.
LYNK & CO International AB, represented by their directors, Planetgatan 6, 417 55
Göteborg, Etage 1 – Uni3 by Geely, Sweden,
Defendant 1),
2.
LYNK & CO Sales Germany GmbH, represented by their directors, Große Hamburger Straße
32, 10115 Berlin, Germany,
Defendant 2),
3.
Zeekr EU B.V., represented by their directors, Jachthavenweg 112, 1081 KJ Amsterdam,
The Netherlands,
Defendant 3)
4.
ZEEKR Germany GmbH, represented by their directors, Magellan-Allee 4, 65479 Raunheim,
Germany,
Defendant 4),
5.
Lotus Cars Europe B.V., represented by their directors, Johan Huizingalaan 400-A, NL-1066
JS Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
Defendant 5),
2
6.
Lotus Cars Deutschland GmbH, represented by their directors, Franz-Joseph-Str. 11, 80801
München, Germany,
Defendant 6),
7.
Smart Europe GmbH, represented by their directors, Esslinger Straße 7, 70771 Leinfelden-
Echterdingen, Germany,
Defendant 7),
Representative:
Dr. Henrik Lehment, Hogan Lovells International LLP,
Dreischeibenhaus 1, 40211 Düsseldorf, Germany,
Electronic
address
for
service:
upc-
hub@hoganlovells.com
PATENT IN SUIT: EP 2 618 514
DECIDING JUDGES:
Panel of the Local Division Hamburg
COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL:
Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Sabine Klepsch
Legally qualified judge Dr. Stefan Schilling
Legally qualified judge Petri Rinkinen
Technically qualified judge Wiem Samoud
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Infringement action - Withdrawal
OF FACTS:
With submission of 29 May 2026, the Claimant requests permission to withdraw its infringement
action and request the Panel to issue an order pursuant to R. 265.2 RoP. Each party will bear its
own costs and will not make any application for a cost decision. Since neither party will make an
application for a cost decision and no reimbursement of costs between the parties is envisaged,
no decision of the Panel on costs is required. The Defendants declare its consent to the
application for withdrawal and confirm that no claims for costs will be made.
The Claimant further request that 50% of the court fees paid for the action be reimbursed to the
Claimant, R. 370.9(b) RoP.
GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:
The decision follows the unanimous requests of the parties. Insofar as Rule 265.2 (c) RoP requires
a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 RoP, the parties did not request any cost
due to the agreement reached between them.
3
The order of reimbursement of 50% of the court fees is based on R. 370.11 RoP in conjunction
with R. 370.9 lit. (b) (iii) RoP, since the action is terminated before the closure of the oral
procedure.
ORDER:
1.
The withdrawal of the Infringement Action (UPC_CFI_1661/2025) against the
Defendants is permitted.
2.
This decision shall be recorded in the register.
3.
It is confirmed that no cost decision is required.
4.
The value of the infringement action is set to 5 million €.
5.
The Registrar is ordered to reimburse the Claimant as soon as possible 50% of the
court fees it has paid for the infringement action.
INFORMATION ON THE APPEAL:
An appeal against the decision may be brought before the Court of Appeal by any party which
has not obtained all or any of the forms of order sought within two months of the date of
notification of the decision (Art. 73(1) UPCA, R. 220.1(b), R. 224 Rules of Procedure).
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SUB
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Hamburg (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sun Patent Trust vs LYNK & CO International AB o. a. 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.