Key takeaways
An application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, applied mutatis mutandis, if no final decision has been issued and the opposing party consents, thereby demonstrating that the opposing party has no interest in a decision being made
The CFI found the patent-in-suit to be infringend and dismissed the Counterclaim for Revocation. The CoA permitted the withdrawal of the application for suspensive effect after the appellant had accidentally lodged an application for suspensive effect in the appeal proceedings relating to the Counterclaim for Revocation and the respondent did not object to the withdrawal, acknowledging the application was devoid of purpose.
No order on costs was to be made pursuant to R. 265.1(c) RoP since the withdrawal of the application for suspensive effect did not terminate the underlying proceedings.
Withdrawing an application before the written procedure closes entitles the party to a 50% court fee reimbursement under R. 370.9(b) RoP, applied mutatis mutandis
The CoA rejected the appellant’s request for a full refund, even for an application filed by accident, finding no legal basis for a full refund in the Rules of Procedure.
The CoA found no “unintended gap” in the Rules of Procedure for applications filed accidentally and noted that R. 370.9(e) RoP can only reduce, not increase, a reimbursement entitlement.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC-CoA-94/2026
Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings – Order on withdrawal of an application and reimbursement of court fees
Parties
Appellants (and Defendants before the Court of First Instance): Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS
Respondent (and Claimant before the Court of First Instance): Hologic, Inc.
Patent(s)
EP 2 352 431
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 265.1 RoP, R. 370.9 RoP, R. 370.11 RoP
