ARTICLE
20 July 2026

Court Of Appeal, July 13, 2026, UPC_CoA_79/2026

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The Court of Appeal addresses three consolidated appeals concerning withdrawal procedures and fee reimbursement requests in patent infringement proceedings. TIRU's appeals against VEOLIA PROPRETE, MAGUIN SAS, and VALINEA ENERGIE involve procedural matters related to European Patent EP 3 178 578, raising questions about the application of Rules of Procedure governing appeal withdrawals and cost recovery.
Germany Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Privacy topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Withdrawal before service on respondents is admissible; respondents need not be heard under R. 265.1 RoP if they have no legitimate interest in continuation.

Since the statement of appeal was still undergoing formal examination under R. 229 RoP and had not yet been served on the respondents, the respondents had no legitimate interest in having the case adjudicated. Accordingly, the Court found it unnecessary to hear the respondents and granted the withdrawal, declaring all three appeal proceedings closed.

No costs decision is required under R. 265.2(c) RoP where respondents have incurred no costs in the appeal proceedings.

The Court departed from the general obligation under R. 265.2(c) RoP to issue a costs decision, reasoning that the respondents had not incurred any costs, as the statement of appeal had not yet been served on them at the time of withdrawal.

Withdrawal before the close of the written procedure entitles the withdrawing party to 50% reimbursement of procedural fees under R. 370.9(b) RoP.

The Court rejected the appellant’s primary claim for full reimbursement and subsidiary claim for 60% reimbursement. The 50% rate applies mechanically based on the procedural stage at which withdrawal occurs. The brevity of the proceedings and the respondents’ failure to appoint representatives are irrelevant to this assessment.

The version of R. 370.9(b) RoP applicable to a reimbursement request is determined by the date of the withdrawal request.

Since the withdrawal request was filed after 1 January 2026, the revised version of R. 370.9(b) RoP applies.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

PR-UPC-CoA-79/2026
PR-UPC-CoA-80/2026
PR-UPC-CoA-81/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal proceedings (withdrawal of appeal and request for reimbursement of procedural fees)

5. Parties

Appellant: TIRU

Respondents:
VEOLIA PROPRETE (PR-UPC-CoA-79/2026)
MAGUIN SAS (PR-UPC-CoA-80/2026)
VALINEA ENERGIE (PR-UPC-CoA-81/2026)

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 178 578

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 265, 370.9, 229 RoP, Art. 33 UPCA

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More