UPC_CFI_1048/2025 – BTL v Lexter

Court
Local Division The Hague
Date
Outcome
Withdrawn
Sector
Other
Decision Type
SETTLEMENT

Expert Commentary

Settlement Facts The claimant asked for withdrawal of its claim and the defendant consented. The parties did not want a cost decision. The Court 1. Compliments for the German company BTL which did not file in a busy German Division, but against the Spanish company Lexter in the The Hague Division! 2. Apparently the case was settled during the oral procedure because no reimbursement of fees was requested (although that may still be done!).

Full Decision Text

1 The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1048/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16/01/2026 regarding: withdrawal Claimant 1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH Represented by Tobias Wuttke Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich, Germany Defendant 1) Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. Represented by Alexandros c/ Larrano 7, San Lorenzo de El Escorial Stavrinadis 28200 Madrid, Spain PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. Proprietor/s EP4146335 BTL Healthcare Technologies a.s. 2 DECIDING JUDGE FULL PANEL Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge-rapporteur Margot Kokke Legally qualified judge Samuel Granata LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English Subject-matter of the proceedings: Infringement proceedings POINTS AT ISSUE AND GROUNDS 1. BTL Medizintechnik GmbH request withdrawal of their infringement action pursuant to R.265.1 RoP because they have reached a settlement. They request the court to declare the proceedings closed. 2. By letter of 14 January 2026 Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. confirmed that they consent to the withdrawal as filed by BTL Medizintechnik GmbH. Therefore, all parties consent to the withdrawal. 3. Parties confirmed that a cost decision is not required. 4. The application is admissible as there is no final decision in the action. The request will be granted. The registry shall be instructed to register the closure of the action in the register ORDER The court: A. allows the withdrawal of infringement action UPC-CFI-1048/2025 B. declares those proceedings closed; C. orders that this decision shall be entered on the register (R.265.2(b)); D. declares that there is no need for cost decisions. 3 Brinkman, presiding judge Granata, legally qualified judge Kokke, judge rapporteur For the Deputy Registrar, clerk

Key Holdings

  • Claims can be withdrawn by consent of both parties, potentially without a cost decision.
  • Settlement during oral procedure may influence fee reimbursement, though it can still be requested.

Tags

  • Costs
  • Settlement
  • Withdrawal

Related Cases

View original decision