Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc., 5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu - 13595 - Seongnam-si, v. ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH

The Claimant, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc., filed a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_452/2025) against six Defendants: ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (Defendant 1), ASUS Computer GmbH (Defendant 2), ASUS France S.a.r.l. (Defendant 3), ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l (Defendant 4), ASUS Europe B.V. (Defendant 5), and Ninepoint GmbH (Defendant 6). The patent at issue was EP 3 849 157. Defendant 2 (ASUS Computer GmbH) filed a Counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1152/2025) against the Claimant and Counterclaim Defendant 2, SK Telecom Co., Ltd. Defendant 1 (ASUSTeK Computer, Inc.), to whom the Statement of Claim was served at a later date, filed a separate Counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_752/2026) against the same parties. The Claimant paid 24,000 € in court fees for the infringement action, Defendant 2 paid 20,000 € for its counterclaim, and Defendant 1 paid 26,500 € for its counterclaim.

Before the closure of the written procedure, the parties jointly requested—with the consent of their respective counterparties and without seeking a cost decision—that the court permit the withdrawal of all relevant actions. Additionally, the parties requested reimbursement of court fees pursuant to Rule 370.11 RoP in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b) RoP. The application for reimbursement contained two obvious errors: Defendant 1 was incorrectly named as the party entitled to reimbursement with respect to the counterclaim filed by Defendant 2 (UPC_CFI_1152/2025), and Defendant 1 requested only 10,000 € in reimbursement despite having paid 26,500 € in court fees for its own counterclaim (UPC_CFI_752/2026).

& Analysis

The court based its decision on Rule 265 RoP, which permits withdrawal by mutual agreement of the parties. The court noted that no cost decision was required because the actions were withdrawn in their entirety and all parties declared that no cost decision was requested, citing the Court of Appeal's orders dated 24 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_840/2024) and 31 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_520/2024). The proportional reimbursement of court costs was based on Rule 370.11 RoP in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b) RoP in its version in force since 1 January 2026. The court exercised its authority to correct the obvious errors in the application, ensuring that only Defendant 2 was named as the party entitled to reimbursement for UPC_CFI_1152/2025, and that Defendant 1 received 50% of the 26,500 € it had actually paid for UPC_CFI_752/2026.

Final Order & Ruling

The court permitted the withdrawal of the infringement action (UPC_CFI_452/2025) against Defendants 1 to 6 and declared those proceedings closed. The court also permitted the withdrawal of both Counterclaims for revocation (UPC_CFI_1152/2025 and UPC_CFI_752/2026) and declared those proceedings closed. The court ordered 50% reimbursement of court fees: 12,000 € to the Claimant for the infringement action, 10,000 € to Defendant 2 for its counterclaim, and 13,250 € to Defendant 1 for its counterclaim. The value in dispute for the infringement action and both counterclaims for revocation was set at 2,000,000 € each. The decision was issued by Judge-Rapporteur Tobias Sender on 10 August 2026 in Mannheim.