UPC_CoA_689/2024, 690/2024 – Magna v Valeo
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Withdrawn
- Sector
- Mechanics
- Decision Type
- SETTLEMENT
Expert Commentary
Withdrawal Background On 31 October 2024, the Local Division Düsseldorf granted a preliminary injunction (“PI”) at Valeo’s request. Magna appealed. At Magna’s request, the Court of Appeal suspended the PI pending appeal to the extent that it covered the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé. On December 2024, Valeo filed for withdrawal of the action, to which Magna subsequently consented. Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal: 1. permits the withdrawal of the action; 2. declares the proceedings closed; 3. orders to mention the decision in the register; and 4. declares there is no need for a cost decision. Comment 1. The Court of Appeal does not mention R. 265 RoP and does not give a cost decision. This is different from the LD Munich, which feels obliged (because of R. 265.2 sub c RoP) to give a cost decision even if the parties have agreed that each party bears its own costs. 2. As I have written before: in my opinion, R. 265 RoP is written for a withdrawal by one of the parties but does not have to be used when parties reach a settlement. If both parties inform the Court that the case is settled, the Court can simply declare the case closed and tell the registrar to put that in the register. Parties can use the R. 9 RoP workflow. If a party or parties would like to get court fees reimbursed, they can ask the Court (if that has not yet been done) to determine the value of the case, or to order the registrar to reimburse a sum to which the parties are entitled, and, if security by (one of) the parties is given by payment to the Court, to pay back the security amount. See also R. 11 RoP. 3. For the development of UPC law it is a pity that this appeal (the oral argument was set for 16 January 2025) will not be decided. One of the (many) issues at stake was the question whether a party could ask for a change of the technical judge if that technical judge has no experience in the relevant technical field. The LD Düsseldorf decided that that is not possible. I think that is incorrect. Art. 8 (5) of the UPCA states clearly that the TQJ should have qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned. If it is clear that the TQJ does not have these qualifications, you would of course expect him/her not to accept the appointment or withdraw in the first place. But if the TQJ does not do so, a party should be able to ask for a replacement. It would be completely against the purpose of having a TQJ on the Court, if it is just window-dressing.
Full Decision Text
ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 13 January 2025 Withdrawal pursuant to R.265 RoP APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT (APPLICANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI) Valeo Electrification, Cergy, France hereinafter also referred to as “Valeo” represented by: Felix Roediger, Jonas Smeets, and Fabian Saupe, Attorneys-at-law, Bird & Bird LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI) 1. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Untergruppenbach, Germany 2. Magna PT s.r.o., Kechnec, Slovak Republic 3. Magna International France, SARL, Biévres, France hereinafter also jointly referred to as “Magna” all represented by: Klaus Haft, Attorney-at-law, Hoyng ROKH Monegier, Munich, Germany; Sabine Agé, Caroline Levesque, Lonni Bas, Laurène Borey, Attorneys-at-laws, Hoyng ROKH Monegier, Paris, France; Sebastian Kratzer, Sven Krause, Max von Leitner, Elisa in den Birken, Chiara Prinz, Attorneys-at-laws, Hoyng, ROKH, Monegier, Düsseldorf, Germany; Dr. Wolfgang Kellenter, Dr. Matthias Rothkopf, David Rüther, Nina Mackenstedt, Attorneys-at-laws Hengeler Mueller, Düsseldorf, Germany PATENT AT ISSUE EP 3 320 602 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English DECIDING JUDGES This order was issued by Panel 2 Rian Kalden, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge Jeroen Meewisse, technically qualified judge Max Tilmann, technically qualified judge IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ORD_56545/2024 in the main proceedings concerning provisional measures, in ACT_37931/2024 UPC_CFI_347/2024, issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 31 October 2024. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_689/2024 APL_60971/2024 App_ 68553/2024 1. At Valeo’s request based on alleged infringement of the patent at issue, the Court of First Instance, Düsseldorf Local Division, in the impugned order of 31 October 2024, issued a preliminary injunction against Magna for the German and French territory. 2. On 14 November 2024, Magna filed an appeal from the impugned order (APL_60971/2024). 3. On 6 December 2024, the judge-rapporteur closed the interim proceedings and summoned the parties to an oral hearing to be held on 16 January 2024. 4. By order of 11 December 2024, the Court of Appeal suspended the effect of the impugned order insofar as the injunction covered the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé car model until the Court of Appeal had decided on Magna’s pending appeal against the impugned order. The effect of the impugned order was prior thereto suspended by respective orders of the standing judge dated 14 and 21 November 2024. 5. On 30 December 2024 Valeo filed an application to withdraw the Action pursuant to R.265 RoP (App_68553/2024). 6. Magna uploaded its consent to the requested withdrawal in a R. 9 RoP application on 2 January 2025 (App_50/2025) PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS 7. In its request, Valeo stated that it wished to withdraw the action, that Magna had already given their written consent to the withdrawal of the action and will not object and that the parties have agreed that neither party shall file an Application for reimbursement of costs. 8. With reference to Valeo’s application, Magna declared their consent to the withdrawal and confirmed that the parties have agreed that neither party shall file an application for reimbursement of costs versus the other party. GROUNDS 9. The application is admissible since there is no final decision in the action in view of the pending appeal. 10. In view of Magna’s consent, Magna cannot be considered to have a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. The application can thus be permitted. ORDER The Court of Appeal: - permits the withdrawal of the action (ACT_37931/2024, UPC_CFI_347/2024; APL_60971/2024 UPC_CoA_689/2024) and declares the proceedings closed; - orders that this decision shall be entered on the register; - declares that there is no need for a cost decision. Issued on 13 January 2025 Rian Kalden, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge Jeroen Meewisse, technically qualified judge Max Tilmann, technically qualified judge
Key Holdings
- The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the action and declared the proceedings closed.
- The Court of Appeal decided there was no need for a cost decision, differing from the Local Division Munich's practice in similar situations.
- The withdrawal prevented a decision on the appeal, which included a significant question regarding the possibility of changing a technical judge lacking experience in the relevant technical field.
- The commentator suggests that R. 265 RoP, concerning withdrawal, should not apply when parties reach a settlement, advocating for a simpler R. 9 RoP workflow for settlements.
Tags
- Costs
- Preliminary Injunction
- Settlement
- Withdrawal