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.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
PR-UPC-CoA-79/2026
PR-UPC-CoA-80/2026
PR-UPC-CoA-81/2026
Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings (withdrawal of appeal and request for reimbursement of procedural fees)
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)
Patent(s)
EP 3 178 578
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 265, 370.9, 229 RoP, Art. 33 UPCA
