Short Summary
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 397 009 against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants that also covered claims against Adyen, and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and set the reimbursement rate of court fees at 40% rather than the standard 50%, resulting in a reimbursement of EUR 16,440.
Detailed Summary
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) brought a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (case UPC_CFI_1795/2026) concerning European patent EP 3 397 009 against thirteen defendants, comprising twelve Verifone entities across multiple European jurisdictions and the United States, as well as Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants (Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 13), which also extended to cover the claims against Defendant 4 (Adyen N.V.) based on the infringing products. Ericsson applied to withdraw the infringement action in accordance with Rule 265.1 RoP, with the consent of all defendants. Both Ericsson and the Verifone defendants declared that they would not make any requests for costs under Rule 150 RoP, and Ericsson requested that the court issue no cost order in relation to Adyen, to which Adyen consented. Ericsson also filed an application under Rule 370.9(b) RoP for reimbursement of court fees.
The judge-rapporteur, legally qualified judge Dirk Andreas Böttcher, allowed the withdrawal with the consent of the defendants and found no reasons to refuse it. The court held that no decision on costs was necessary because the parties had unanimously declared there was no need for such a decision, citing the Court of Appeal's decision of 28 May 2025 in UPC_CoA_808/2024. The court noted that a formal cost decision as requested by Ericsson would merely reflect that there would be no reimbursement of costs, making such a decision unnecessary.
Regarding the reimbursement of court fees under Rules 370.9(b)(e) and 370.11 RoP, the regular rate of reimbursement is 50% when an infringement action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure. However, the judge-rapporteur exercised discretion under Rule 370.9(e) RoP to reduce the reimbursement rate to 40% based on the exceptional circumstances of the case. The court considered several factors: although the action was withdrawn at an early stage within the extended time period for the Statement of Defence, the intertwined structure of the requests required a deeper analysis than usual at this stage and coordination between different divisions (The Hague and Mannheim). The confidentiality regime requested was above-average complex and even provoked a request for file inspection by a third party, though the court did not need to rule on it because the parties reached an agreement after a Case Management Hearing in the parallel proceedings in The Hague. A preliminary objection was decided only in part and otherwise postponed to the main proceedings. The original proceedings from which the present case was separated concerned three patents whose subject-matter did not appear sufficiently closely related to be heard in joint proceedings, necessitating a separation order of 8 May 2026. Weighing all these circumstances, the court found a moderate reduction to 40% appropriate and sufficient.
The value in dispute was set at EUR 3,000,000, the undisputed amount stated in the statement of claim as value in dispute per patent. The value of the so-called FRAND Specific Claims was exclusively accounted for in the original proceedings UPC_CFI_661/2026 from which the present proceedings were separated. Based on the 40% reimbursement rate and the value in dispute, the court fees to be reimbursed amounted to EUR 16,440, calculated as the fixed court fee of EUR 14,600 plus the additional value-based court fee of EUR 26,500, multiplied by 0.4. The Registrar was directed to reimburse Ericsson 40% of the court fees paid, namely EUR 16,440, to the bank account indicated in Ericsson's briefs of 7 July 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) vs Verifone GmbH & Others 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.