UPC_CoA_46/2025; UPC_CoA_48/2025 – Arkyne v Plant-e Knowledge
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Settlement Background The Local Division granted an injunction against Arkyne and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. Arkyne filed an appeal against both the injunction and the dismissal of its counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal 1. The Court of Appeal was informed about a settlement between the parties and was asked to confirm the settlement agreement and to order that the unredacted version be kept confidential from the public (R. 262.2 RoP). 2. The Court of Appeal published the redacted version in its judgment, stating that the decision about confidentiality would be made when a member of the public requests the agreement. 3. An amount of 60% of the court fees are to be reimbursed to the parties as the settlement was reached before the end of the written phase. Comment 1. Rule 365 RoP states that after such confirmation of the settlement agreement, "the agreement may be enforced as a final decision of the Court." So, if the agreement stipulates that one party will cease to sell the product, such a clause may be enforced as if the Court had issued an injunction. 2. The Court applied Rule 262 RoP as intended by the drafters, which means the agreement will be placed on the register in its unredacted version. If a member of the public requests it, the registrar will first ask the parties for their views. The parties can then object and argue that only the redacted version should become public due to confidentiality reasons. The member of the public can then dispute the necessity for confidentiality. 3. I find this approach generally unpractical. I believe it would be much better if, when a party or parties request confidentiality, the Court decides on it then and there. If the Court agrees with the request, it would mean that a member of the public, when asking for access, would be told that the requested information is (partially) confidential, which that member of the public could then dispute if they wished. 4. With respect to settlement agreements (as in this case), this way of handling a request for confidentiality is even the appropriate way, in my opinion. Rule 365.2 RoP is, in my opinion, a lex specialis of Rule 262 RoP, but apparently, the representative based their request for confidentiality on Rule 262 RoP and not on Rule 365.2 RoP.
Full Decision Text
1 DECISION of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 23 June 2025 concerning a confirmation of a settlement and reimbursement of Court fees APPELLANT (DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ): Arkyne Technologies S.L., Carrer de la Tecnologia, 17, 08840 Viladecans, Barcelona, Spain hereinafter also referred to as “Arkyne” represented by: Dr. Bernd Allekotte, Dr. Julia Traumann, attorneys-at-law, Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Munich, Germany R ESPONDENTS (CLAIMANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ) : Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V., Beukenlaan 52, 6871 CL Renkum, The Netherlands hereinafter also jointly referred to as “Plant-e” represented by: Oscar Lamme, B.W.A. Algie, D.M. Termeulen, Dr. P. Meyer, attorneys-at-law, Simmons & Simmons LLP, Amsterdam, The Netherlands P ATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 137 782 P ANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES This decision was adopted by Panel 1a, consisting of: Klaus Grabinski, Presiding Judge Reference numbers: UPC_CoA_46/2025, APL_3486/2025, App_21415/2025, App_25038/2025 and UPC_CoA_48/2025, APL_3595/2025, App_22747/2025, App_25037/2025 2 Peter Blok, legally qualified judge Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Andrea Scilletta, technically qualified judge Dennis Kretschmann, technically qualified judge IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, The Hague Local Division, dated 22 November 2024 □ Numbers attributed by the Court of First Instance: - in the infringement action, UPC_CFI_239/2023 ACT_549536/2023 ORD_598516/2023, - in the counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_239/2023 CC_588768/2023 ORD_598513/2023. L ANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS English SUMMARY OF FACTS AND REQUESTS OF THE P ARTIES 1. Plant-e initiated infringement proceedings against Arkyne before The Hague Local Division based on alleged infringement of the patent at issue. Arkyne filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent at issue. 2. The Local Division held that Arkyne had infringed the patent at issue, granted an injunction, ordered several other measures and rejected the counterclaim for revocation of the patent at issue (see impugned decision). 3. Arkyne filed an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP (APL_3486/2025 UPC_CoA_46/2025) against the impugned decision issued in the infringement action and an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP (APL_3595/2025 UPC_CoA_48/2025) against the impugned decision issued in the counterclaim for revocation. 4. On behalf of all parties, Plant-e then informed the Court that they had concluded the proceedings by way of a settlement and filed two applications (App_21415/2025 in the infringement action and App_22747/2025 in the counterclaim for revocation) for a confirmation by the Court of Appeal of a settlement agreement entered into between the parties (hereafter the “Settlement Agreement”), requesting the Court to - confirm that the parties have concluded the Settlement Agreement, as provided under Exhibit EP47; 3 - pursuant to Rule 365.2 RoP, keep the entire contents of the Settlement Agreement, except for the preamble and recitals, confidential from the public; - on behalf of all parties, Plant-e notified the Court that a cost order pursuant to R. 365.4 RoP is not required. 5. Plant-e filed two requests for confidentiality from the public under R 262.2 RoP (App_24254/2025 UPC_CoA_46/2025 and App_24270/2025 UPC_CoA_48/2025), requesting the Court to keep confidential the unredacted version of the Settlement Agreement. 6. Arkyne lodged two generic applications (App_25038/2025, in appeal APL_3486/2025, and App_25037/2025, in appeal APL_3595/2025) to request the reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees as well as reimbursement of the difference between the Court fees actually paid by Arkyne and the reduced fees to which it is eligible pursuant to Rule 370.8 RoP. GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION 7. According to R. 365 RoP, if requested by the parties, the Court shall confirm the settlement that they have reached. Such decision may be enforced as a final decision of the Court and shall be entered into the register. 8. The request for confidentiality from the public under R. 262.2, 365.2 RoP will be decided once a R. 262.1(b) RoP request is made by a member of the public. The confidentiality interests of the parties are protected by the order of the court that only the decision including the redacted version of the settlement shall be entered on the register. 9. Concerning the reimbursement of court fees, in the event of a settlement of an action concluded by the parties, the party liable for the Court fees will upon request receive a refund of 60% of the Court fees if the action is settled before the closure of the written procedure (R.370.9(b)(i) RoP). 10. The written procedures in these appeal cases have not been closed since Plant-e had to lodge its Statement of response until 24 June 2025, therefore the time limit of R. 235 RoP has not expired. It follows that, in the present case, the actions were settled prior to the closure of the written procedure. Consequently, Arkyne is entitled to a reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees paid for the above-mentioned appeals pursuant R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP. D ECISION I. At the request of the parties, the Court confirms, pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP, that the parties have reached the following settlement: 4 5 6 7 II. This decision including only the redacted version of the settlement shall be entered on the register. III. The Court of Appeal orders the reimbursement to Arkyne of a total of 60 % of the court fees it has paid, namely 8,820 EUR as set out hereafter: IV. 3,960 EUR, corresponding to 60% of 6,600 EUR, the amount of reduced appeal Court fees in the APL_3486/2025; V. 4,860 EUR corresponding to 60% of 8,100 EUR, the amount of reduced appeal Court fees in the appeal APL_3595/2025. VI. This decision is enforceable as a final decision of the Court of Appeal. This decision was issued on 23 June 2025 Klaus Grabinski, Presiding Judge Peter Blok, legally qualified judge Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and judge rapporteur Andrea Scilletta, technically qualified judge Dennis Kretschmann, technically qualified judge
Key Holdings
- Settlement confirmed on appeal; redacted version published.
- Confidentiality decision deferred until public access request (R. 262.2 RoP).
- 60% fee reimbursement granted.
- Settlement enforceable as court decision.
Tags
- Confidentiality
- Court Fees
- Enforcement
- Public Access
- Settlement