UPC_ CFI_1332/2026 – Dacia v Avago

Expert Commentary

Settlement Facts 1. On 30 December 2025, the claimant filed a revocation action with respect to EP 1 770 912. 2. On 27 April 2026, the defendant filed a defence and an application to amend the patent. 3. The parties settled, and each party will bear its own costs. The Court 1. The Court accepts withdrawal of the claim. 2. The Court orders the decision to be entered in the Register. Comment 1. The panel does not bother about costs if that has not been asked. Certain (formalistic) panels feel that they have to say something about costs because R. 265.2(c) RoP states that you have to issue a cost decision. That is all too formalistic. 2. Let us hope that if the Rules are revised, a simple message of the parties to the Registry is sufficient for settling a case (unless parties want to apply R. 365 RoP). 3. The claimant did not ask for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees. The claimant is going to cause more unnecessary work if it is still going to ask for it. If so, I hope the Court would use its discretion and refuse.

Full Decision Text

1 Central Division Paris Seat UPC CFI 2282/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 13 May 2026 CLAIMANT Automobile Dacia S.A., Strada Uzinei 1, 115400 Mioveni, Romania Represented by: Tim Hülsheger and Dr. Thomas Eelbo, Prinz & Partner DEFENDANT Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, 1 Yishun Avenue 7, Singapore 768923, Singapore Represented by: Hannes Jacobsen and Paul Szynka, CBH Rechtsanwälte PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. Proprietor EP1770912 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 Steven Richard Kitchen. COMPOSITION OF PANEL – FULL PANEL Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser Legally qualified judge Maximilian Haedicke Technically qualified judge Steven Richard Kitchen 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 30 December 2025, the Claimant lodged a revocation action against the Defendant. On 27 April 2026, Defendant filed a Defence to revocation together with an 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 2282/2025 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 Steven Richard Kitchen, technically qualified judge For the Deputy-RegistrarSTEVEN RICHARD KITCHEN Digitally signed by STEVEN RICHARD KITCHEN Date: 2026.05.13 12:17:52 +02'00'Digital signiert von Maximilian Wilhelm Haedicke DN: cn=Maximilian Wilhelm Haedicke, c=DE Datum: 2026.05.13 15:29:18 +02'00' Maximilian Wilhelm HaedickeMarjolein Jeanette Johanna Visser Signature numérique de Marjolein Jeanette Johanna Visser Date : 2026.05.13 16:05:10 +02'00'Carol BEURTHERET Signature numérique de Carol BEURTHERET Date : 2026.05.13 16:13:15 +02'00'

Key Holdings

• The Court accepts withdrawal of a revocation claim upon settlement.
• The Court will not address costs if not explicitly requested by the parties, even if rules suggest a cost decision is required.
• Claimants seeking reimbursement of court fees should request it concurrently with the withdrawal to avoid additional procedural steps.
• The Court may use its discretion to refuse late requests for reimbursement of court fees.

Tags

• Settlement
• Withdrawal
• Costs
• Procedure
• Court Fees