Court Of Appeal, March 3, 2026, Order On A R.265 RoP Application And Determination Of Value In Dispute, UPC_CoA_887/2025

1. Key takeaways

A claimant can withdraw an action for provisional measures even during a pending appeal, with the defendant's consent, closing proceedings at both instances (R. 265.1, R. 265.2 RoP).

The Court permitted the withdrawal requested by the claimant and consented to by the defendant, as no final decision had been made. 

Upon withdrawal of an action, the Court must issue a costs decision; the withdrawing claimant was ordered to bear all costs based on party agreement (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 265.2(c) RoP).

The order reflects the mutual agreement of the parties that the claimant, as the party withdrawing the action, should be responsible for the costs incurred in both the first instance and the appeal proceedings.

The value of provisional measures proceedings can be set by analogy using the UPC Guidelines, even if a main action exists, for the sake of simplicity (R. 152.2 RoP).

The UPC Guideline for the determination of the court fees and the ceiling of recoverable costs (II.5(b)) suggests to value the provisional measure proceedings at 66% of the proceedings on the merits, when the application for interim relief is not followed by an infringement action on the merits. Even though a main action was filed in the present case, the Court applied this guideline by analogy to simplify the mandatory cost decision upon withdrawal.

The injunction's value was estimated at 80% of the main infringement action's total value, considering the patent's long remaining life and the lower relative value of damages claims (Guideline II.1(a)(3)(i)).

The parties agreed that the value of the infringement action should be set at EUR 1,000,000.00, which led the Court to set the value of the application for provisional measures at EUR 530,000.00 (a rounded 66% of 80% of EUR 1,000,000.00

2. Division

Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_887/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Proceedings for provisional measures

5. Parties

APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)

1. Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, Pyrmonter Straße 78, 32676 Lügde, Germany
2. BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, Siemensstraße 2, 32676 Lügde, Germany
3. BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K, Poznańska 113A, PL 62-052 Komorniki, Poland
4. NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH, Chenover Straße 5, 67117
   Limburgerhof, Germany

RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)

1. Washtower IP B.V., Enschedesestraat 300, 7552 CN – Hengelo, The Netherlands
2. Washtower B.V., Enschedesestraat 300, 7552 CN – Hengelo, The Netherlands

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 522 755

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 69 UPCA, R. 265.1 and 265.2(c) RoP, R. UPC Guidelines for court fees

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.