Short Summary
This decision by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw all proceedings before the closure of the written procedure and did not request a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawals and ordered 50% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant, Defendant 2), and Defendant 1) in accordance with the applicable Rules of Procedure.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings were brought before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. (a South Korean entity), filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 849 157 against six Defendants, namely ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (Taiwan), ASUS Computer GmbH (Germany), ASUS France S.a.r.l. (France), ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l (Italy), ASUS Europe B.V. (Netherlands), and Ninepoint GmbH (Germany). The main infringement action was registered as UPC_CFI_452/2025, for which the Claimant paid 24,000 € in court fees.
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. (South Korea), paying 20,000 € in court fees. Subsequently, 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, paying 26,500 € in court fees.
Before the closure of the written procedure, the parties jointly requested—with the consent of their respective counterparties and without requesting a cost decision—that the Court permit the withdrawal of all relevant actions. Additionally, the parties sought proportional reimbursement of court fees pursuant to Rule 370.11 RoP in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b) RoP (in its version in force since 1 January 2026).
The Court, acting through Judge-Rapporteur Tobias Sender, permitted the withdrawal of all proceedings based on Rule 265 RoP in accordance with the 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 The Court noted that no cost decision was required because the actions were withdrawn in their entirety and all parties declared that no cost decision was requested, citing prior Court of Appeal orders.
The Court corrected two obvious errors in the applications for reimbursement: (1) Defendant 1) was incorrectly mentioned in the application concerning the Counterclaim for revocation filed by Defendant 2) (UPC_CFI_1152/2025), and the Court included only Defendant 2) as the party entitled to reimbursement; and (2) Defendant 1) correctly requested 50% of the court fees for its own Counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_752/2026) but erroneously requested a refund of only 10,000 € despite having paid 26,500 € in court fees.
In its operative decision, the Court: (1) permitted the withdrawal of the infringement action and declared the proceedings closed; (2) permitted the withdrawal of both Counterclaims for revocation and declared those proceedings closed; (3) ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees of the infringement action (12,000 €) to the Claimant; (4) ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees of the first Counterclaim for revocation (10,000 €) to Defendant 2); (5) ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees of the second Counterclaim for revocation (13,250 €) to Defendant 1); (6) set the value in dispute for the infringement action and each Counterclaim for revocation at 2,000,000 €; and (7) ordered the decision to be entered on the register.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before UPC Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. vs ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Avient Protective Materials B.V.vsXingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
This is an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 791 402 B1 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, brought by Avient Protective Materials B.V. against two Chinese group companies collectively referred to as 'Xinji.' The Claimant sought alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after the standard service via The Hague Service Convention to China, initiated on 2 July 2025, failed to produce a certificate of service despite multiple inquiries. The Claimant proposed service at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf by a German bailiff upon any staff member of the Defendants at their exhibition stand, with alternative methods also proposed.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vs1.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., 2. Andreas Rentmeister e.K.;
This procedural order concerns the service of a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. The Applicant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., had sought provisional measures against the Defendants, but service on the China-based Defendant 1. proved impossible through the Chinese Central Authority, which certified that no such company existed at the address provided. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, with the names of the parties and file number, constitutes good service on Defendant 1. pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP.
Gilead Sciences, Inc.,, 94404, USAvsAcademy of Military Medical Sciences,, LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
This is a cost decision of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) following revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_552/25) in which Gilead Sciences was the successful party. Gilead sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs from AMMS, which did not dispute the amount but requested a stay of payment pending appeal or alternatively payment by instalments. The court rejected both requests, holding that the automatic suspensive effect of Article 74(2) UPCA applies only to appeals on revocatio
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This order concerns the withdrawal of a penalty request in enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., withdrew its requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Niche Biomedical, Inc., (doing business as ANEUVO), 10940 WivsRespondent
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the assessment of recoverable costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant (Niche Biomedical/ANEUVO) sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% under Rule 152(2) RoP. The court held that no proper request to raise the ceiling had been made, as merely requesting reimbursement of costs exceeding the ceiling does not constitute an explicit request to raise it. The court set the recoverable costs at the applicable ceiling of EUR 112,000.00 and rejected the remainder of the request.
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.