UPC_ CFI_716/2025 – ETRI v Hisense
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Calculation error Facts The Court corrects a calculation error: 60% of the court fees to be returned is not €14.400 but €18.600. Comment 1. If a Court is too busy errors can easily happen! Is this another lesson for parties to file in less busy local divisions? 2. Should they maybe next time also use a technical judge?
Full Decision Text
1 Düsseldorf Local Division UPC CFI 716/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 27 April 2026 concerning EP 2 258 692 B1 CLAIMANT: Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), represented by its president Mr Bang Seung Chan, 218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34129, Korea Litigation Counsel: 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 attorneys: Patent attorney Georg Anetsberger, 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: 1. Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, represented by its directors, Parkring 31-33, 85748 Garching, Germany 2. ATAG Nederland B.V., represented by its directors, Impact 83, 6921 RZ Duiven, The Netherlands 3. Gorenje gospodinjski aparati, d.o.o, represented by its directors, Partizanska cesta 12, 3320 Velenje, Slovenia 4. Hisense Visual Technology Co, Ltd, represented by its directors, No. 218, Qianwangang road, Economy Development Zone, 266555 Qingdao, People's Republic of China 5. Hisense France SAS, represented by its directors, 12-16 Rue Sarah Bernhardt, 92600 Asnières-Sur-Seine, France 2 6. Hisense Italia S.r.l., represented by its directors, Via Montefeltro, 6A, 20156 Milan, Italy Litigation Counsel: Attorney-at-law Dr Stephan Dorn, Attorney-at-law Sebastian Vautz, CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbB, Kasernenstr. 43- 45, 40213 Düsseldorf Electronic address for service: sebastian.vautz@cms-hs.com PATENT IN SUIT: EUROPEAN PATENT NO. EP 2 258 692 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel 1 of the Düsseldorf Local Division DECIDING JUDGES: This decision was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr Thom acting as Judge-Rapporteur and legally qualified Judge Johansson. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT: R. 353 RoP – rectification GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION: On its own motion, the Court rectifies section V of the order in the decision of 16 February 2026 because it contains a calculation error. 60% of the court fees are not € 14,400 but € 18,600. ORDER: Section V of the order in the decision of 16 February 2026 is corrected to read as follows: “The Court orders that 60% of the Court fees (= € 18,600) be reimbursed to Claimant.” 3 Issued in Düsseldorf on 27 April 2026 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding Judge Thomas Legally Qualified Judge Dr Thom Legally Qualified Judge Johansson for the Sub-Registrar
Key Holdings
- Courts can correct calculation errors in their orders.
- The possibility of errors in busy courts suggests a need for diligence or consideration of less busy divisions.
- The use of a technical judge might help prevent certain types of errors.
Tags
- Costs
- Procedural Error
- Rectification