UPC_CFI_1923/2025; UPC_CFI_1062/2026 – Dolby v Beko
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Settled
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Settlement Facts 1. The claimant informed the Court by letter that parties have reached a settlement agreement and asked for an immediate stay of the infringement and revocation actions. 2. The defendant agreed. The Court 1. The Court grants the stay. 2. The Court asks the parties to inform the Court before 30 July 2026 if they want to object against the cancelling of the date for the oral proceedings. Comment Rule 295 (d) RoP states that the Court may stay the proceedings at the request of both parties. The fact that parties did not file for a withdrawal shows that the agreement was not yet signed. In that case, it is understandable to ask for a stay, especially if the next deadline for a submission is only some days away. I underlined “may”. I can imagine that a Court would be more hesitant if, a few days before the oral hearing, the parties ask for a stay because they are in the process of settling. If the settlement does not happen for one reason or another, the Court loses a hearing date and has to prepare for the hearing again. It is much better to keep the pressure on the parties so that they are forced to reach an agreement before the hearing!
Full Decision Text
Düsseldorf Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Date: 27 July 2026 Patent Number: EP 3 079 153 **CLAIMANT** Dolby International AB, represented by its Board of Directors, 77 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay Block C Grand Canal Docklands, Dublin, D02 VK60, Ireland **Represented by:** Attorney-at-law Dr Tilman Müller, Attorney-at-law Dr Volkmar Henke, Attorneys-at-law and UPC Representatives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent attorneys, attorneys at law, Bohnenstraße 4, 20457 Hamburg, Germany Patent attorney Tobias Kaufmann, Patent attorneys and UPC Representatives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent attorneys, attorneys at law, Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675 Munich, Germany **Electronic address for service:** mueller@bardehle.de **DEFENDANTS** Beko Germany GmbH, represented by its directors Til Bickelmann and Jens-Christoph Bidlingmaier, Rahmannstraße 3, 65760 Eschborn, Germany Arçelik A.Ş, represented by its directors, Elektronik Plant, Cerkezköy Organize Sanayi Bölgesi, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510 Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turkey **Defendants 1 and 2 represented by:** Attorney-at-law Dr Michael Nieder, Attorney-at-law Dr Clemens Bogedain, Patent attorney Tilman Pfrang, LL.M., professional representatives admitted to practice before the UPC of Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB, Widenmayerstraße 47, 80538 München, Germany. **Electronic address for service:** t.pfrang@mb.de **PATENT IN SUIT:** EUROPEAN PATENT NO. EP 3 079 153 **PANEL/DIVISION:** Panel 1 of the Düsseldorf Local Division **DECIDING JUDGES:** This order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas on behalf of legally qualified judge Dr Schumacher acting as judge-rapporteur. **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:** English **SUBJECT:** R. 295(d) RoP – Stay of proceedings **SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:** By brief dated 23 July 2026, the Claimant informed the Court that the parties have reached a settlement agreement. According to the Claimant, this settlement agreement was signed on 17 July 2026 and provides that all patent infringement and ancillary proceedings between the parties, such as counterclaim for revocation and ancillary proceedings, shall be settled. Against this background, the Claimant requests: The infringement action and counterclaim for revocation are stayed with immediate effect. The Defendants declared by brief dated 24 July 2026 that they consent to and support the Claimant’s application to stay the proceedings. **GROUNDS OF THE ORDER:** Pursuant to R. 295(d) RoP, the Court may stay the proceedings at the joint request of the parties. The parties’ submissions are to be regarded as such a request which is why the Court has stayed the proceedings. **ORDER:** I. The infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are stayed with immediate effect. II. In light of the settlement agreement that has already been reached, it is intended to cancel the oral hearing scheduled for 8 April 2027. The parties will be given the opportunity to object to this by 30 July 2026. Issued in Düsseldorf on 27 July 2026 **NAME AND SIGNATURE** Presiding Judge Thomas
Key Holdings
- The Court may grant a stay of proceedings at the request of both parties, particularly when a settlement agreement is reached.
- A stay can be granted even if a formal withdrawal has not yet been filed, indicating that the settlement agreement might not be fully signed.
- Courts may be hesitant to grant stays shortly before oral hearings to avoid losing hearing dates if the settlement falls through.
- It is often preferable for courts to maintain pressure on parties to finalize settlement agreements before scheduled hearings.
Tags
- Settlement
- Stay of Proceedings
- Procedural
- Case Management