UPC_ CFI_1176/2026 – Nissan v Avago

Court
Central Division Paris
Date
Outcome
Withdrawn
Sector
Mechanics
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Settlement Facts Like in the Dacia v Avago case discussed above, Nissan requests withdrawal of its claim, in this case even before the Statement of Claim has been served. The Court 1. In such a situation, the defendant does not have to be heard because it is not yet participating in the proceedings. 2. The Court permits the withdrawal. 3. The Court orders the reimbursement of 50% of the court fees. Comment 1. Different from Dacia, Nissan asks the court fees back at the same time as the request for withdrawal. 2. The big question is: why do these car manufacturers withdrew their revocation action? Did Avago offer them a better deal? Did they find knock out prior art (not found by the EPO) which caused Avago to give a cheap license? We will never know!

Full Decision Text

1 Central Division Paris Seat UPC CFI 1176/2026 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 13 May 2026 CLAIMANT Nissan Deutschland GmbH, Kronenweg 38, 50389 Wesseling - DE Represented by Christof Karl, Bardehle Pagenberg DEFENDANT Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd., Singapore - SG PATENT AT ISSUE EP 1903733 DECIDING JUDGES This decision 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 2 LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Revocation action Application to withdraw the action (R. 265 RoP) SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND APPLICATIONS 1. By document dated 7 April 2026, the Claimant has filed a revocation action regarding the patent in suit against the Defendant. 2. On 23 April 2026, the Claimant filed an application to withdraw the action according to R. 265 RoP. It submitted that no application for a cost decision will be filed by any party. Claimant further asked for a partial reimbursement of the court fees according to R. 370.9(b) RoP. 3. Service on the Defendant has not yet taken place. 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. As the application to withdraw the action was filed before the Statement for revocation was served, no rights and obligations have arisen for the Defendant. Therefore the Defendant has no legitimate interest in participating in these proceedings and does not need to be heard (UPC CFI 122/2024 (CD Paris), decision of 9 August 2024). 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. 7. As the application for withdrawal has been filed after 1 January 2026, the amended R. 370.9 RoP is applicable (UPC CoA 328/2025, decision of 9 January 2026, Juul vs. NJOY, para. 11). 50% of the court fees will therefore be reimbursed, resulting in an amount of (50% of EUR. 26.500) EUR 13.250. 3 DECISION The panel, permits the withdrawal of the revocation action UPC CFI 1176/2025 and declares the proceedings closed; orders that this decision be entered on the Register; orders that 50% of the court fees be reimbursed to the Claimant. Marjolein Visser, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke, legally qualified judge, Andrea Scilletta, technically qualified judge For the Deputy-Registrar,Firmato digitalmente da: Scilletta Andrea Firmato il 12/05/2026 17:45 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: 2026.05.13 09:57:51 +02'00' Maximilian Wilhelm HaedickeMarjolein Jeanette Johanna Visser Signature numérique de Marjolein Jeanette Johanna Visser Date : 2026.05.13 10:40:30 +02'00'Carol BEURTHERET Signature numérique de Carol BEURTHERET Date : 2026.05.13 10:51:06 +02'00'

Key Holdings

  • Withdrawal of a claim before the Statement of Claim is served does not require the defendant to be heard.
  • The Court permits withdrawal of the claim in such circumstances.
  • The Court orders reimbursement of 50% of court fees when requested at the time of withdrawal.
  • Requesting court fee reimbursement simultaneously with withdrawal is the correct procedure.

Tags

  • Settlement
  • Withdrawal
  • Costs
  • Procedure
  • Court Fees

Related Cases

View original decision