UPC_CoA_29/2026; UPC_CoA_30/2026 – Bekaert v Polidoro
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Settled
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Settlement Facts 1. On 21 November 2024, Polidoro started an infringement action based on EP 2 037 175. Bekaert responded with a Statement of defence and a Counterclaim for revocation. 2. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Counterclaim and found infringement of claim 1. 3. The parties settled and asked for withdrawal of their claims with no decision on costs. Court of Appeal 1. Granted the requests. 2. 50% court fees are to be returned to Bekaert as the withdrawal took place before the end of the written procedure. Comment I do not know if revision of the Rules will also lead to a different (and simpler) way of implementing a settlement. As suggested before, if parties do not want to use R. 365 RoP, a simple message by both parties to the Registry (which can also deal with the costs reimbursement) should be sufficient. On the other hand, R. 265 RoP has now been (mis)used for settlements for three years and everybody is used to it. It probably does not take a lot of time for the Court to deal with it.
Full Decision Text
Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court UPC-CoA-29/2026 UPC-CoA-30/2026 Decision 6 July 2026 Patent: EP 2 037 175 APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) 1. Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., J.C. van Markenstraat 22, 9403 AS, Assen, The Netherlands 2. NV Bekaert SA, Bekaertstraat 2, 8550 Zwevegem, Belgium (hereinafter together: “Bekaert”) All represented by: Dr. Matthias Meyer, Bird & Bird LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany RESPONDENT (CLAIMANT AND COUNTERDEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) Polidoro S.p.a., Via Lago di Misurina 76, 36015 Schio (Vicenza), Italy (hereinafter: “Polidoro”) Represented by: Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy, Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte, Munich, Germany PATENT IN SUIT: EP 2 037 175 PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES Panel 3 Ulrike Voβ, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Bart van den Broek, legally qualified judge Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Michel Abello, technically qualified judge Uwe Ausfelder, technically qualified judge IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Decision of 18 December 2025 issued by the Local Division Mannheim Reference numbers: UPC CFI 716/2024 (Infringement) UPC CFI 205/2025 (Counterclaim for Revocation) Reference numbers: UPC-CoA-29/2026 UPC-CoA-30/2026 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English **SUMMARY OF FACTS:** 1. On 21 November 2024, Polidoro lodged an infringement action based on the patent in suit against Bekaert before the Local Division Mannheim. On 7 March 2025, Bekaert lodged its Statement of defence and, separately, on 8 March 2025 filed a Counterclaim for revocation of the patent in suit. 2. In the impugned decision of 18 December 2025, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Counterclaim for revocation and held that the infringement action was partially successful, namely with respect to direct infringement of claim 1. 3. On 18 February 2025, Bekaert appealed the impugned decision and requested the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision insofar as it found the patent at issue to be valid and infringed. 4. On 11 June 2026, both parties filed applications for withdrawal. 5. Bekaert requests the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal of its Counterclaim for revocation (UPC CFI 205/2025) and to declare the proceedings closed. Bekaert further requests reimbursement of 50% of the Court fees paid in appeals UPC CoA 29/2026 and UPC CoA 30/2026. In addition, Bekaert states that it consents to Polidoro’s withdrawal of the infringement action and confirms that the cost order issued by the Court of first instance should remain unaffected by the withdrawal. Accordingly, no decision on costs is sought from the Court of Appeal. 6. In its application for withdrawal, Polidoro requests the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal of its infringement action (UPC CFI 716/2024) and to declare the proceedings closed. Polidoro further confirms that it consents to Bekaert’s withdrawal of the Counterclaim for revocation. In addition, Polidoro states that no decision on costs is required. **REASONS FOR THE ORDER** Conditions for permitting withdrawal 7. As long as there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may, pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, apply to withdraw his action. This provision equally applies to withdrawals of appeals (CoA, 5 July 2024, UPC CoA 234/2024, 10x Genomics vs Curio Bioscience, para 9; 23 December 2025, UPC CoA 691/2025, Lindal Dispenser vs Rocep, para 5; 10 February 2026, UPC CoA 913/2025, UPC CoA 914/2025, Organon Heist B.V, NV Organon, vs Genentech Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, para 9). 8. The application to withdraw the appeal is admissible since there is no final decision in the action in view of the pending appeal, and the Court of Appeal is responsible for deciding on the permissibility of the application for withdrawal (CoA, 15 January 2025, UPC CoA 637/2024, Avago vs Tesla). 9. The Court of Appeal permits the withdrawal of the appeal, given the parties’ consent to the withdrawals of both actions for infringement and revocation. Costs 10. R. 265.2 (c) RoP provides that the Court shall issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5. 11. Since both parties agree, there is no need for a cost decision. Reimbursement of Court fees 12. In the present case, the application to withdraw the appeal was filed before the lodging of the Statement of response and, therefore, before the closure of the written procedure. Reimbursement of the Court fees by 50% is to be ordered in accordance with R. 370.9(b) RoP as it reads since 1 January 2026, given that the application to withdraw and for reimbursement was filed after 1 January 2026 (CoA Order of 6 March 2026, UPC CoA 895/2026, Black sheep v. HL Display; CoA Decision of 26 May 2026, UPC CoA 916/2025). **DECISION** The Court of Appeal: 1. permits the withdrawal of the appeals UPC CoA 29/2026, and UPC CoA 30/2026 and declares these proceedings closed; 2. orders that this decision shall be entered on the Register; 3. orders that 50% of the appeal Court fees in the appeal cases UPC CoA 29/2026 and UPC CoA 30/2026 be reimbursed to Bekaert. This decision was issued on 6 July 2026. Ulrike Voβ, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Bart van den Broek, legally qualified judge Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Michel Abello, technically qualified judge Uwe Ausfelder, technically qualified judge
Key Holdings
- The Court of Appeal granted requests for withdrawal following a settlement between the parties.
- 50% of court fees are to be returned when withdrawal occurs before the end of the written procedure.
- The analysis discusses the application of R. 265 RoP for settlements and suggests potential simpler alternatives to R. 365 RoP.
Tags
- Settlement
- Withdrawal
- Costs
- Procedure