LD Lisbon, July 29, 2026, Decision On Confirmation Of A Settlement, UPC_CFI_757/2024

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.

Explore Firm Details

This page appears to be a security verification checkpoint that temporarily blocks access while validating the incoming request. The system implements protective measures to distinguish legitimate users from automated traffic or potential security threats.

Germany Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

Article Insights

Kerstin Galler’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
in European Union

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Agreement on costs confirmed and rendered enforceable pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP

The Court held that R. 365.1 RoP (Confirmation by the Court of a settlement) applies to settlements limited to costs. As long as the settlement resolves an existing or potential dispute, regardless of whether it is submitted pending main proceedings on the merits as a partial settlement of the overall dispute it falls under R. 365.1 RoP (sec. 11). Whether an agreement on costs indeed constitutes a settlement within the meaning of R. 365.1 RoP must be assessed in light of its substance (sec. 12).

In the case at hand, the Court confirmed an agreement on costs as settlement and rendered it enforceable within one week of service of the decision (operative part)

Principles for interpretation of Rules of Procedure

The Court must interpret the Rules of Procedure in a reasonable and balanced manner, avoiding excessive formalism or disproportionate outcomes. If a rule allows multiple interpretations, the Court prefers the one that respects the legitimate interests of all parties and prevents unfair procedural advantages (sec. 14).

Regarding specifically, the meaning of “requested by the parties” in R. 365.1 RoP, the wording must be interpreted within the overall context of the rule, especially when a settlement has already been jointly submitted to the Court (sec. 15).

R. 365.1 request of one party sufficient

The Court held that the requirements of R. 365.1 RoP are satisfied when only one party submits the request for confirmation, after both parties have already jointly submitted the settlement and its terms (sec. 17).

The Court justifies this by stating that submitting a settlement to the Court signals a binding commitment by both parties to comply with its terms in good faith. By submitting the settlement, parties accept that the Court can render it enforceable through confirmation. A second joint request for enforceability is procedurally unnecessary. Requiring it would unfairly allow one party to unilaterally block the enforcement of a jointly submitted agreement (sec. 16).

No time limit for R. 365.1 request

The Court points out that the Rules of Procedure do not set a time limit or a procedural step (such as filing an appeal) for requesting a confirmation decision pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP (sec. 22).

In the case at hand, the one month time limit to apply for a cost decision pursuant to R. 150 seqq. had already expired when the request for the confirmation decision was filed.

2. Division

Lisbon Local Division

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_757/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings

5. Parties

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (Claimant);

ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC (Defendant)

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 819 131

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 365, 150 seqq. RoP

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]