Executive Summary
In this UPC case, Toyota Motor Europe sought to withdraw a revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG concerning patent EP 3 876 490. The Court granted the withdrawal request, formally terminating the proceedings under Rule 265 RoP. Furthermore, the court ruled on the reimbursement of court fees, awarding Toyota a partial refund based on when the withdrawal occurred relative to the procedural stages.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court confirmed that an action may be withdrawn under Rule 265 RoP as long as no final decision has been rendered. The specific percentage of fee reimbursement depends on whether the withdrawal occurred before or after the closure of the interim/oral procedure, leading to a 20% refund in this case.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, 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
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsHMD Global Oy
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim established a comprehensive confidentiality regime for ongoing FRAND negotiations between Huawei and HMD Global. The court recognized that details of confidential license discussions require protection under Rule 262A RoP, extending this shield to future submissions. This order is significant as it provides clear legal certainty regarding the handling of sensitive commercial data within UPC proceedings, balancing the need for transparency with the necessity of protecting proprietary information.
Hologic, Inc.vsSiemens Healthineers AG
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a request for security for costs filed by Siemens Healthineers against Hologic in an infringement and revocation action. Siemens argued that enforcing potential cost orders would be unduly burdensome due to Hologic's US domicile, citing lack of international judgment recognition treaties. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the burden lies on the applicant to prove undue burden with specific evidence regarding foreign law application. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required for security for costs applications in UPC proceedings.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AGvsAWM s.r.l.
This interim order in the Progress Maschinen v. Schnell case addressed several key procedural issues ahead of the main oral hearing. The court deferred a decision on the admissibility of a new patent amendment (AR4) to the Panel's assessment during the upcoming hearing. Crucially, the parties were given time to negotiate an agreement on damages and costs before proceeding with the full merits discussion. This order highlights the UPC's focus on procedural efficiency while maintaining flexibility for settlement.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsOROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this procedural order, the Lokalkammer Mannheim addressed the structure of a complex UPC case involving infringement and revocation claims against OPPO and OROPE. The court ruled that combining the infringement lawsuit with the counterclaim for non-validity (including FRAND licensing) was procedurally efficient and substantively advantageous. This decision sets an early precedent for managing multi-faceted disputes within the UPC framework.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.vsRoche Diabetes Care GmbH
In a preliminary objection hearing, the UPC Central Division addressed arguments concerning whether a standstill agreement could prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The court ruled decisively that violating such an agreement does not equate to a lack of jurisdiction. This ruling clarifies the scope of contractual limitations on judicial proceedings within the UPC framework, emphasizing that procedural agreements cannot override the fundamental ability of the court to hear the case.
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.