Short Summary
This case concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The plaintiff applied to withdraw the nullity action, and the defendant consented. The court granted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings, but reduced the plaintiff's request for a 60% reimbursement of court fees to 50%, applying the amended Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on January 1, 2026.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, ALD France S.A.S (a French company represented by its CEO Serge Bertrand), filed a nullity action on October 1, 2025, against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG (a German company represented by its managing director Christian Gerking) concerning European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1. The case was registered as UPC_CFI_999/2025 and assigned to Panel 3 of the Central Division Paris Seat, presided over by legally qualified judge Maximilian Haedicke (as rapporteur), legally qualified judge Tatyana Zhilova, and technically qualified judge Max Tilmann. The proceedings were conducted in German.
The defendant Nanoval had previously filed an infringement action on May 3, 2025, against ALD's parent company, ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH, before the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_384/2025). ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH had in turn filed a counterclaim for nullity of the same patent before the Munich Local Division on August 7, 2025 (UPC_CFI_659/2025).
On June 7, 2026, Nanoval's representative filed an application for withdrawal of the action under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), to which ALD consented. On July 8, 2026, ALD formally applied for: (I) an order permitting withdrawal of the nullity action filed on October 1, 2025; (II) reimbursement of 60% of the court fees for the nullity action; and (III) alternatively, reimbursement of 50% of the court fees under Rules 370.11 and 370.9(b) RoP in the version valid from January 1, 2026. On July 13, 2026, Nanoval consented to the withdrawal. Neither party requested a cost decision regarding inter-party costs.
The central legal dispute concerned the applicable version of Rule 370.9(b) RoP for determining the reimbursement rate. Under the version in force until December 31, 2025 (Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP), a party withdrawing an action before the conclusion of the written proceedings would receive a 60% reimbursement of court fees. Under the amended version in force from January 1, 2026 (Rule 370.9(b) RoP), the reimbursement rate was reduced to 50% for withdrawals before the conclusion of the written proceedings. ALD argued that the old version should apply because the nullity action itself was filed before January 1, 2026, and that the change should only apply to fee-triggering applications and proceedings, not to applications for withdrawal and reimbursement.
The court first addressed the withdrawal under Rule 265.1 RoP, noting that no final decision had yet been issued and that the defendant had consented to the withdrawal. The court therefore permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings under Rule 265.2(a) RoP, and ordered the decision to be entered in the UPC register under Rule 265.2(b) RoP.
On the reimbursement issue, the court rejected ALD's main request for 60% reimbursement. The court reasoned that the amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP, which entered into force on January 1, 2026, applies to applications filed after December 31, 2025, as confirmed by the Administrative Committee's decision of November 4, 2025. The court followed the established case law of the Court of Appeal (including decisions in Black Sheep/HL Display of March 6, 2026; Hurom/NUC of May 26, 2026; Bekaert/Polidoro of July 6, 2026; and Tiru/Veolia of July 13, 2026), which held that the new version applies to applications for withdrawal and reimbursement filed after the cut-off date, rather than to fee-triggering applications and proceedings. Since ALD's application for withdrawal and reimbursement was filed on July 8, 2026—after the January 1, 2026 cut-off date—the new version of Rule 370.9(b) RoP applied.
Accordingly, the court granted ALD's alternative request and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees, amounting to 10,000 EUR, under the new Rule 370.9(b) RoP. The court declined to issue a cost decision regarding inter-party costs, as none had been requested.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Court of Appeal. Understanding the court's reasoning in Verfahrensvertreter: Linklaters LLP, Taunusanlage 8, 60329 F, Anlage 35-37, 60327 Frankfurt am Main vs Golkowsky, Joachimsthaler Straße 10-12, 10719 Berlin, PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Schmellerstraße 4, 80337 Mü is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Advanced Standard Communication LLCvsXIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_92A1E8747E, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.vsRespondent
The Walt Disney Company entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. concerning EP3259902, applied for a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant opposed the request, arguing that all defendants should submit their own corresponding applications or alternatively be given the opportunity to be heard before any decision is issued. The President of the Court of First Instance ruled that the position of all parties potentially affected by the requested change must be heard in the context of such an application.
Dolby International ABvsCPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, which was conducted online behind closed doors due to the confidential nature of the discussions, including matters related to the patent pool administrator Vectis. Key issues discussed included ongoing pool negotiations, a Rule 190 request by Acer, the applicability of a prior FRAND-related decision, and Acer's consideration of filing a counterclaim for rate setting against both Dolby and Vectis.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH)vsQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This order concerns Huawei's application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich regarding inspection of case file documents. Quinn Emanuel had sought access to pleadings filed in terminated infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek, which the Rapporteur initially granted subject to redaction. After Huawei challenged this, the Local Division confirmed the Rapporteur's amended decision and found Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded, without allowing appeal. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal.
Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 October 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Niclas Gaj
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.