UPC_CoA_895/2025; UPC_CoA_896/2025 – Black Sheep v HL Display
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Settled
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- SETTLEMENT
Expert Commentary
Settlement Facts 1. Blacksheep was injuncted by the Local Division The Hague. 2. Blacksheep filed an appeal. 3. The parties asked for and obtained a stay (for three months) for settlement discussions. 4. Blacksheep filed a request for withdrawal on 25 February 2026. 5. On 2 March 2026, HL Display indicated that it agreed and that it did not request a decision on costs. The Court of Appeal 1. The Court of Appeal accepts the withdrawal. 2. There is no costs decision. 3. 50% reimbursement of appeal fees (under the new Rules applicable since 1 January 2026). Comment 1. I did not see if Blacksheep asked for a return of fees. I assume so, because no return of fees should be awarded if not requested. A party may appreciate the work of the Court so much that it would not ask for such return! (Bravo!) 2. Note: This was a withdrawal of the appeal and not (by the claimant) of the claim. Therefore, the decision in first instance remains in force.
Full Decision Text
1 Decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 6 March 2026 Withdrawal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and Application for reimbursement of Court fees (R. 370.9 RoP) APPELLANT AND DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Black Sheep Retail Products B.V, Betsy van Goorstraat 22, 6702 DC Wageningen, The Netherlands hereinafter: ”Black Sheep” represented by Tjibbe Douma, attorney-at-law, Bird & Bird (Netherlands) LLP RESPONDENT AND CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HL Display AB, Box 1118, 131 26 Nacka Strand, Stockholm, Sweden hereinafter: ”HL Display” represented by Gertjan Kuipers, attorney-at-law, Hogan Lovells International LLP PATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 432 351 DECIDING JUDGE Panel 3 Ulrike Voß, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Bart van den Broek, legally qualified judge LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English Appeal n°: UPC-COA-0000895/2025 UPC-COA-0000896/2025 2 IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Decision of the Local Division the Hague dated 10 October 2025 Reference numbers: UPC CFI 386/2024 UPC CFI 610/2024 FACTS AND REQUESTS OF THE PARTIES 1. HL Display brought an infringement action of the patent at issue against Black Sheep before the Local Division the Hague (UPC CFI 386/2024). 2. In response to the action for infringement, Black Sheep filed a declaration of non-infringement and formulated a counterclaim for revocation (UPC CFI 610/2024). 3. On 10 October 2025, the Local Division the Hague declared, in the impugned decision, that Black Sheep had infringed the patent at issue, and pronounced an injunction as well as corrective measures. Moreover, the Local Division dismissed the counterclaim for revocation and declared the counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement inadmissible. 4. On 29 October 2025, Black Sheep lodged an appeal against the impugned decision. 5. However, due to pending settlement discussions, the parties jointly requested to stay the proceedings until Black Sheep would withdraw the appeal proceedings or one of the parties would notify the Court that the timeline for the appeal proceedings would have to be resumed. 6. By way of an order issued on 14 January 2026, a stay of the present proceedings before the UPC was ordered for a period of three months. 7. On 25 February 2026, Black Sheep filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings pursuant to Rule 265(1) RoP, indicating that no decision on costs is requested and that HL Display has consented to the withdrawal of the appeal. 8. On the same day, Black Sheep filed a subsequent application for reimbursement of 60 % of Court fees pursuant to R. 370(9)(b)(i) RoP. 9. On 2 March 2026, HL Display filed comments on Black Sheep’s application for withdrawal, indicating it agrees with Black Sheep’s request to withdraw the appeal proceeding. HL Display did not request a decision on costs. GROUNDS Conditions for permitting withdrawal 10. Pursuant to R.265.1 RoP, 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. The Court shall decide upon the application after hearing the other party. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. 3 11. This provision equally applies to withdrawals of appeals (CoA, 5 July 2024, CoA 234/2024, 10x Genomics vs Curio Bioscience, para 9 and CoA, 23 December 2025, CoA 691/2025, Lindal Dispenser v Rocep, para 5). 12. In view of Black Sheep’s request, the Court of appeal permits the withdrawal of the appeal, given the consent from HL Display. Costs 13. R. 265.2 (c) RoP provides that the Court shall issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 (R.150 to 152 RoP). 14. In this case, the Court of First instance ordered Black Sheep to pay HL Display the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses exposed at this stage of the proceedings in the amount of EUR 56,000. Before the Court of Appeal, none of the parties requests such a decision. Therefore, there is no need for a cost decision. Reimbursement of Court fees 15. According to R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP as it read until 31 December 2025, in the event of the withdrawal of the action (R.265 RoP), the party obliged to pay the Court fees shall receive a refund of 60 % if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure. 16. This provision has been modified following the amendments to R. 370.9 RoP, which entered into force on 1 January 2026. The amendments apply to actions and applications filed after 31 December 2025 (see page 4 of the AdminComm Amendment of the table of court fees and other related changes to the Rules of Procedure and Guidelines). 17. In case the application for reimbursement is filed after 1 January 2026, reimbursement shall therefore be ordered in accordance with the new provision (see CoA, 9 January 2026, CoA 257/2025, VMR Products LLC v. NJOY Netherlands BV). 18. Following the amendments to R. 370.9 RoP, in case of the withdrawal of an action (R. 265 RoP), the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by 50 % in accordance with R. 370.9(b) RoP if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure. 19. In the present case, the application to withdraw the appeal was made before the lodging of the Statement of response. Therefore, the withdrawal was made before the closure of the written procedure. Reimbursement by 50 % is to be ordered in accordance with this provision. ORDER The Court of Appeal: - permits the withdrawal of the appeal and declares the proceedings closed; - orders that this decision shall be entered on the Register; - orders that 50 % of the appeal Court fees be reimbursed to Black Sheep. This order was issued on 6 March 2026. 4 Ulrike Voß, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Bart van den Broek, legally qualified judge
Key Holdings
- Appeals can be withdrawn by request, especially when parties reach a settlement.
- If the opposing party agrees to the withdrawal and waives a costs decision, the Court may not issue one.
- Withdrawal of an appeal may entitle the withdrawing party to a 50% reimbursement of appeal fees under new rules.
- The withdrawal of an appeal leaves the first-instance decision in full force and effect.
Tags
- Settlement
- Withdrawal
- Appeal Proceedings
- Costs
- Fees