APL 68522/2024, UPC CoA 844/2024, App 1387/2025 – Sodastream Industries Ltd. v Aarke AB

Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Outcome
Appeal withdrawn, proceedings closed, 60% of appeal court fees reimbursed to the appellant, no cost decision issued.
Sector
Mechanics
Decision Type
ORDER

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 19 February 2025 Withdrawal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and Application for reimbursement of Court fees (R. 370.9 RoP) APPLICANT AND APPELLANT (DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI) Aarke AB, Stockholm, Sweden hereinafter also referred to as “Aarke” represented by: Jens Olsson, Magnus Dahlman and Emelie Rexelius, attorneys at law, Advokatbyrån Gulliksson AB, Malmö, Sweden, Christian Arkelius, European patent attorney, Arkelius, Ström & Gulliksson AB, Stockholm, Sweden RESPONDENT (CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI) Sodastream Industries Ltd., Kfar Saba, Israel hereinafter also referred to as “Sodastream” represented by: Dr. Andreas von Falck, Dr. Alexander Klicznik, Diana Rodriguez, Lea Groblinghoff, attorneys at law, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany PATENT AT ISSUE EP 1 793 917 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English DECIDING JUDGES This order was issued by Panel 2 Rian Kalden, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Düsseldorf Local Division, Date: 31 October 2024; ORD 598499/2023 in the main proceedings concerning infringement action ACT 580849/2023 UPC CFI 373/2023 UPC Court of Appeal APL 68522/2024 UPC CoA 844/2024 App 1387/2025 2 SUMMARY OF FACTS AND INDICATION OF THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS 1. Sodastream initiated infringement proceedings against Aarke before the Düsseldorf Local Division based on alleged infringement of the patent at issue. 2. The Düsseldorf Local Division declared that Aarke had infringed the patent at issue and issued an injunction and several other measures. 3. On 30 December 2024, Aarke lodged an appeal against the impugned order (APL 68522/2024 UPC CoA 844/2024). 4. On 10 January 2025 Aarke filed an application to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, an application for reimbursement of court fees pursuant to R. 370 RoP and requested a cost decision to be issued. 5. Sodastream was given the opportunity to comment on Aarke’s requests and has not filed any comments in this regard. GROUNDS Conditions for permitting withdrawal 6. As long as there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may, pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, apply to withdraw his action. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. R. 265.1 RoP also applies mutatis mutandis to the withdrawal of an appeal. 7. Taking into consideration that Sodastream has not objected to Aarke’s request it cannot be considered to have a legitimate interest in a decision by the Court. Thus, the application to withdraw the appeal can be permitted. Costs 8. R. 265.2 (c) RoP provides that the Court shall issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5. Aarke only generally requests that a cost decision be issued, without any further guidance. 9. Since Aarke requested a withdrawal of its appeal, it must be considered as the unsuccessful party who should bear the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party pursuant to Art. 69(1) UPCA (see UPC Court of Appeal, 5 July 2023 UPC CoA 234/2024; APL 27805/2024, App 38102/2024 para. 13). 10. Despite being given the opportunity to do so, Sodastream did not file any comments and thus has not requested to have any costs reimbursed. The Court of Appeal thus concludes that there is no need for a cost decision. Reimbursement of Court fees 11. In case of the withdrawal of an action (R. 265 RoP), the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by 60 % in accordance with R.370.9 (b) (i) RoP if the action is withdrawn before the written proceeding have been concluded. This reimbursement is to be ordered in accordance with the application. 3 ORDER The Court of Appeal: - permits the withdrawal of the appeal (APL 68522/2024, UPC CoA 844/2024) and declares the proceedings closed; - orders that this decision shall be entered on the Register; - declares that there is no need for a cost decision; - orders that 60 % of the appeal Court fees be reimbursed to Aarke. Issued on 19 February 2025, Rian Kalden, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge

Key Holdings

  • An appeal may be withdrawn if the opposing party has no legitimate interest in a court decision, especially if they do not object to the withdrawal (R. 265.1 RoP).
  • A party withdrawing its appeal is generally considered the unsuccessful party for cost allocation purposes under Art. 69(1) UPCA.
  • No separate cost decision is required if the successful party (respondent) does not request reimbursement of costs.
  • 60% of appeal court fees are reimbursed if the appeal is withdrawn before the conclusion of written proceedings (R. 370.9 (b) (i) RoP).

Tags

  • Costs
  • Court Fees
  • Infringement
  • Procedural Issues
  • Unified Patent Court
  • Withdrawal of Appeal

Related Cases