- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in India
- within Transport topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Withdrawal of appeal permitted under R. 265(1) RoP where the respondent consents and has no legitimate interest in the action being decided.
Under R. 265.1 RoP, a party may withdraw its action as long as no final decision has been rendered. The withdrawal shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided. Where the respondent expressly consents, there is no obstacle to permitting the withdrawal.
R. 265 RoP applies equally to withdrawals of appeals, as confirmed by settled Court of Appeal jurisprudence.
The Court of Appeal reiterated that R. 265 RoP is not limited to first-instance actions but extends to appeal proceedings, citing its own precedents in 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience (CoA_234/2024) and Lindal Dispenser v. Rocep (CoA_691/2025).
Amended R. 370.9 RoP (effective 1 January 2026) reduces fee reimbursement from 60% to 50%; date of application determines applicable version.
- The appellant applied for 60% reimbursement under the former R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP, but the Court applied the amended provision granting only 50%, since the application was filed after 31 December 2025. The Court relied on its precedent in VMR Products v. NJOY Netherlands (CoA_257/2025).
- For practitioners, the decisive date for determining which version of R. 370.9 RoP applies is the date of the reimbursement application — not the date the appeal was originally lodged.
No cost decision at appeal level where neither party requests one, despite R. 265.2(c) RoP formally providing for one upon withdrawal.
Although R. 265.2(c) RoP requires the Court to issue a cost decision in accordance with R. 150–152 RoP, neither the appellant nor the respondent requested such a decision before the Court of Appeal. The Court therefore refrained from issuing one at the appellate stage.
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_COA_895/2025, UPC_COA_896/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal — Withdrawal of appeal proceedings (R. 265 RoP) and application for reimbursement of Court fees (R. 370.9 RoP)
5. Parties
Appellant: Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (Defendant in the main infringement action before the Court of First Instance)
vs.
Respondent: HL Display AB (Claimant in the main infringement action before the Court of First Instance)
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 432 351
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 265(1) RoP, R. 265(2)(c) RoP, R. 150–152 RoP, R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP (former), R. 370.9(b) RoP (amended, effective 1 January 2026)
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]