ARTICLE
26 July 2026

Court Of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order Concerning An Appeal In A Revocation Action, UPC-CoA-861/2025

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 UPC Court of Appeal addresses a critical question of cost allocation when a patent holder surrenders their patent immediately after a revocation action is initiated. This case examines whether a claimant who files for revocation must bear the costs when the defendant offers no resistance and surrenders the patent at the outset of proceedings.
Germany Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Henri Kirner’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
  • in United States

1. Key takeaways

A claimant must bear costs if itunnecessarily initiates a revocation action against a defendant who has not given cause and surrenders the patent immediately at the beginning of the proceedings (Art. 69 (1), (2) UPCA)

The CoA held that the principles of equity required that the prevailing claimant had to bear the costs even if the defendant is technically “unsuccessful” by surrendering the patent as the defendant did not give cause for the action. In particular, the defendant had not threatened to assert the patent against the claimant; pending litigation between the parties based on other patents cannot be considered a thread of litigation based on a different patent. Also it cannot be generally considered a cause for action if EPO opposition proceedings are pending and the defendant has not yet responded to the opposion or has not surrendered its patent following the opposition. (In the present case, the revocation acion was filed less than four weeks after notification of the oppsion. Procedural steps, like changing representatives or requesting time extensions in the opposition proceedings, do not automatically prove an intent to defend the patent, especially when assessed at the time the revocation action was lodged.

A patent surrender is made timely (“immediate”) if declared within the time limit for filing the Defence to revocation (R. 49 RoP), allowing for disposal of the action (R. 360 RoP)

The defendant met this requirement by applying for disposal on the final day of the deadline for its Defence to the revocation, having surrendered the patent to the EPO one day prior.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_861/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal against a cost decision in a revocation action

5. Parties

Appellant (Defendant at first instance): FUJIFILM Corporation

Respondent (Claimant at first instance): Kodak, S.A.

6. Patent(s)

EP 4 082 804

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 69(1) UPCA, Art. 69(2) UPCA, R. 49 RoP, R. 360 RoP, Art. 105a EPC

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