Short Summary
This case before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against patent EP 3 083 107 B1 owned by Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff requested withdrawal of the nullity action and refund of 60% of court fees, alternatively 50%. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of court fees (10,000 EUR) under the amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP effective January 1, 2026, rejecting the request for 60%.
Detailed Summary
This decision was rendered by the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on July 23, 2026, in case UPC_CFI_999/2025. The plaintiff, ALD France S.A.S, represented by Linklaters LLP, filed a nullity action on October 1, 2025, against European patent EP 3 083 107 B1 held by the defendant, Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG, represented by Pfenning Meinig & Partner mbB. The patent dispute arose in the context of related proceedings: Nanoval had filed an infringement action against ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (the parent company of ALD France) at the Munich Local Division on May 3, 2025 (UPC_CFI_384/2025), and ALD Vacuum Technologies had filed a counterclaim for nullity at the Munich Local Division on August 7, 2025 (UPC_CFI_659/2025).
On June 7, 2026, Nanoval's procedural representative filed a request for withdrawal of the action pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), to which ALD consented. Subsequently, on July 8, 2026, ALD formally requested the court to order the withdrawal of the nullity action filed on October 1, 2025, and the refund of 60% of the court fees paid for the nullity action. Alternatively, ALD sought a 50% refund pursuant to Rule 370.11 and Rule 370.9(b) RoP in the version effective from January 1, 2026. Nanoval consented to the withdrawal on July 13, 2026. Neither party requested a cost decision regarding recoverable costs between the parties.
The core legal dispute concerned the applicable version of Rule 370.9(b) RoP governing the refund of court fees upon withdrawal of an action. Under the version in force until December 31, 2025 (Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP), a party obliged to pay court fees would receive a 60% refund if the action was withdrawn before the completion of the written procedure. However, this provision was modified effective January 1, 2026, reducing the refund to 50% under the same conditions. The Administrative Committee's decision of November 4, 2025 specified that the amendment applies to actions and applications filed after December 31, 2025.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's request for withdrawal and fee refund was filed on July 8, 2026, which was after the January 1, 2026 cutoff date. Therefore, the new version of Rule 370.9(b) RoP applied, not the older version providing for a 60% refund. The court relied on established Court of Appeal jurisprudence (Black Sheep/HL Display, Hurom/NUC, Bekaert/Polidoro, and Tiru/Veolia cases) confirming that the amendment applies to withdrawal and refund requests filed after January 1, 2026, and saw no reason to deviate from this precedent. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the amendment should apply only to fee-generating applications and proceedings rather than to withdrawal and refund requests.
In its operative decision, the court allowed the withdrawal of the action, declared the case UPC_CFI_999/2025 terminated pursuant to Rule 265.2(a) RoP, ordered registration of the decision in the UPC register pursuant to Rule 265.2(b) RoP, and ordered a refund of 50% of the court fees (10,000 EUR) to the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 370.9(b) RoP. The request for a 60% refund was rejected, and the court abstained from issuing a cost decision since none was 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 ALD France S.A.S vs Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG 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.