UPC_CoA_77/2026; UPC_CoA_78/2026 – Beko v Dolby
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Settled
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Stay / Settlement Facts Dolby asked for a stay (and Beko agreed) because parties reached a settlement. The JR 1. The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) grants the stay. 2. “The parties shall inform the Court of Appeal once the respective obligations arising under the settlement agreement have been fulfilled”. 3. Each party is entitled to request the Court to resume the proceedings stating reasons for the request. Comment 1. Note what the JR mentions under 2. Dolby started the proceedings in order to force Beko to sign a license, but does not want to withdraw its claim yet because it first wants to make sure it receives the money it is owed. Or at least, that is my speculation. 2. Experience teaches us that it is one thing to have an implementer sign a license agreement, but sometimes another to receive payment. If the patentee has negotiated a lump sum or at least a one-time payment for past use of the patent, it is prudent not to withdraw before the money is received.
Full Decision Text
UPC Court of Appeal UPC-CoA-77/2026 UPC-CoA-78/2026 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 28 July 2026 regarding request for stay of proceedings (R. 295 RoP) Patent at Issue: EP 3 605 534 APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT ACTION AND CLAIMANTS IN THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR REVOCATION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) 1. Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany 2. Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant, Istanbul, Turkey (hereinafter jointly referred to as ”Beko”) represented by attorney at law Tilman Pfrang, Meissner Bolte, Munich, Germany RESPONDENT (CLAIMANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT ACTION AND DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR REVOCATION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland (hereinafter referred to as ”Dolby”) represented by attorney at law Dr. Volkmar Henke, Bardehle Pagenberg, Hamburg, Germany DECIDING JUDGE Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Date: 18 March 2026, Local Division Düsseldorf Action numbers attributed by the Court of First Instance: - UPC_CFI_135/2024 (Infringement action) and - UPC_CFI_477/2024 (Counterclaim for revocation action) LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English **SUMMARY OF FACTS** 1. Dolby has informed the Court that the parties have reached a settlement agreement and announced that the parties will withdraw their respective claims and/or applications as soon as all corresponding obligations under the settlement have been met. 2. On 23 July 2026, Dolby requested pursuant to R. 295 (d) RoP that the infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings UPC-CoA-77/2026 and UPC-CoA 78/2026 are stayed with immediate effect. 3. The Court invited Beko to comment on the requests for stay of the appeal proceedings. On 24 July 2026, Beko agreed to a stay of the proceedings. **REASONS** 4. Pursuant to R. 295(d) RoP, the Court may stay proceedings at the joint request of the parties. 5. Dolby has provided valid grounds for a stay of the proceedings, and Beko has agreed to the requested stay. Dolby’s application to stay the appeal proceedings shall be granted. **ORDER** I. A stay of the proceedings UPC-CoA-77/2026 and UPC-CoA 78/2026 before the UPC is ordered. II. The parties shall inform the Court of Appeal once the respective obligations arising under the settlement agreement have been fulfilled. III. Each party is entitled to request the Court to resume the proceedings, stating reasons for such a request. Issued on 28 July 2026 Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Case management decisions or orders made by the judge-rapporteur shall be reviewed by the panel, on a reasoned Application by a party (R. 333.1 RoP)
Key Holdings
- A stay of proceedings can be granted by the UPC Court of Appeal when parties reach a settlement.
- The court may require parties to inform it upon the fulfillment of settlement obligations.
- Either party retains the right to request the resumption of proceedings if settlement terms are not met.
- Strategically, a patentee may choose not to withdraw a claim until all agreed payments from a settlement, especially lump sums, have been received.
Tags
- Stay of Proceedings
- Settlement
- Procedural
- Court of Appeal
- Costs