UPC_CFI_1039/2025 – Dacia v Avago

Court
Central Division Paris
Date
Outcome
Settled
Sector
Other
Decision Type
SETTLEMENT

Expert Commentary

Settlement Facts The facts are the same as in the decision of 13 May 2026, but this decision concerns a different patent, i.e. EP 1 903 733. The Court Same decision as 13 May 2026. Comment Again Dacia did not ask for reimbursement of court fees and, as a consequence, such return is not ordered.

Full Decision Text

1 Central Division Paris Seat UPC CFI 1039/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 18 May 2026 CLAIMANT Automobile Dacia S.A., Strada Uzinei 1, 115400 Mioveni, Romania Represented by: Tim Hülsheger, Prinz & Partner DEFENDANT Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, 1 Yishun Avenue 7, Singapore 768923, Singapore Represented by: Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. Proprietor EP1903733 Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited DECIDING JUDGES This order is issued by the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser, the legally qualified judge Maximilian Haedicke and the technically qualified judge Andrea Scilletta. COMPOSITION OF PANEL – FULL PANEL Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser Legally qualified judge Maximilian Haedicke Technically qualified judge Andrea Scilletta LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English 2 SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Revocation action Application to amend the patent Application to withdraw the action (R. 265 RoP) SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND APPLICATION 1. By document dated 6 October 2025, the Claimant lodged a revocation action against the Defendant. On 10 February 2026, Defendant filed a Defence to revocation together with an Application to amend the patent. On 13 April 2026, the Claimant filed a Reply to the defence to revocation and defence to the application to amend the patent. 2. On 12 May 2026, the Claimant filed an Application to withdraw the action pursuant to R. 265 RoP. It further stated that the parties have agreed that each party shall bear its own costs and that a decision on costs pursuant to R. 265.2(c) RoP is not required. 3. On 12 May 2026, the Defendant consented to the withdrawal of the action and confirmed that the parties have agreed that each party shall bear its own costs and that a decision on costs is not required. GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION 4. Pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, as long as no final decision has been taken, a Claimant may apply to withdraw his action. The Court shall decide on the application after hearing the other party. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. 5. In the present case, the application is admissible since no final decision has been taken. Given the consent of the Defendant, the withdrawal of the action shall be permitted. 6. The Court will declare the proceedings closed and this decision will be entered on the register in accordance with R. 265.2(a) and (b) RoP. As this has not been requested, a cost decision will not be issued. DECISION The panel, permits the withdrawal of the revocation action UPC CFI 1039/2025 and declares the proceedings closed; orders that this decision be entered on the Register. 3 Marjolein Visser, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke, legally qualified judge Andrea Scilletta, technically qualified judge For the Deputy-RegistrarFirmato digitalmente da: Scilletta Andrea Firmato il 18/05/2026 10:59 Seriale Certificato: 5696650 Valido dal 12/02/2026 al 12/02/2029 InfoCamere Qualified Electronic Signature CADigital signiert von Maximilian Wilhelm Haedicke DN: cn=Maximilian Wilhelm Haedicke, c=DE Datum: 2026.05.19 10:04:02 +02'00' Maximilian Wilhelm HaedickeMarjolein Jeanette Johanna Visser Signature numérique de Marjolein Jeanette Johanna Visser Date : 2026.05.19 10:11:35 +02'00'Carol BEURTHERET Signature numérique de Carol BEURTHERET Date : 2026.05.19 11:26:58 +02'00'

Key Holdings

  • Settlement of a case can lead to withdrawal of the action.
  • Reimbursement of court fees upon withdrawal is not automatic.
  • A specific request for reimbursement of court fees is required for the court to order their return.

Tags

  • Settlement
  • Withdrawal
  • Court Fees

Related Cases

View original decision