Fee Reimbursements and Parallel Filings: Two Divisions Apply Rule 370.9 RoP
When an infringement action settles early, the standard 50% fee reimbursement is not guaranteed. Four coordinated orders from the Paris Central Division and Mannheim Local Division demonstrate how complex parallel filings reduce the refund.
When a complex multi-patent dispute settles early in the written procedure, the claimant typically expects a straightforward refund of the court fees. The Unified Patent Court Agreement encourages early settlement, and the fee schedule reflects this policy by offering a standard reimbursement. However, when the initial litigation strategy involves parallel filings across multiple divisions, intertwined FRAND requests, and highly contested confidentiality regimes, the calculation changes. Four coordinated orders issued on 14 September 2026 demonstrate how different divisions assess the actual judicial workload generated before a withdrawal and when they will invoke exceptional circumstances to reduce the refund.
How did the Paris Central Division assess the parallel FRAND filings?
In the joined proceedings UPC-CFI-0001571/2025 and UPC-CFI-0000710/2026, the claimant Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with Transsion and several co-defendants. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the claimant applied to withdraw the infringement actions under Rule 265 RoP and requested a 60% reimbursement of the court fees.
The panel, led by Judge-rapporteur Zhilova, first clarified the applicable baseline rate. While the previous version of Rule 370.9 RoP permitted a 60% refund, amendments effective from 1 January 2026 reduced this standard rate to 50% for actions withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure. The panel confirmed that the new 50% rate applied to these cases.
However, the panel did not grant the standard 50% refund. Applying Rule 370.9(e) RoP, which allows the Court to reduce the refund in exceptional cases based on the stage of the proceedings and the party's procedural behaviour, the panel found the situation exceptional. The claimant had filed several parallel procedures with different divisions, specifically requesting that The Hague take the lead on FRAND issues. This strategy required the Court to perform more work than usual to coordinate the actions. Furthermore, the docket already contained a large number of applications and requests, including a highly debatable confidentiality regime. Consequently, the panel reduced the reimbursement to 35% of the court fees paid.
Why did the Mannheim Local Division reduce the refund despite an early withdrawal?
On the same day, the Mannheim Local Division issued parallel orders in UPC-CFI-0001795/2026 and UPC-CFI-0001796/2026, concerning a settlement between Ericsson and the Verifone defendants. Here, the infringement actions were withdrawn at an even earlier stage, falling within the extended time period for the Statement of Defence.
Despite this early withdrawal, Judge-rapporteur Böttcher also exercised discretion under Rule 370.9(e) RoP to depart from the standard 50% reimbursement rate. The judge-rapporteur noted that the intertwined structure of the requests required a deeper analysis than usual at this early stage. Similar to the Paris cases, coordination between different divisions, namely The Hague and Mannheim, was necessary.
The procedural history in Mannheim was particularly dense. The confidentiality regime requested was above-average in complexity and had even provoked a request for file inspection by a concerned third party. Although the Court ultimately did not have to rule on the confidentiality regime because the parties reached an agreement after a case management hearing in the parallel Hague proceedings, the judicial effort had already been expended. Additionally, the Court had partially decided a preliminary objection and had issued a separation order on 8 May 2026 because the original three patents were not sufficiently closely related to be heard jointly. Taking all these circumstances into account, the judge-rapporteur deemed a moderate reduction to a 40% reimbursement rate appropriate.
Where do the divisions align on the interpretation of exceptional circumstances?
These four decisions reveal a unified approach to Rule 370.9(e) RoP across different divisions of the Unified Patent Court. Both the Paris Central Division and the Mannheim Local Division agree that the purpose of the fee reimbursement is to ensure proportionality with the work already carried out by the Court.
The baseline 50% refund assumes a standard progression of pleadings. When a claimant's litigation strategy generates an outsized judicial burden before the withdrawal, the divisions will classify the case as exceptional. Both divisions explicitly cited the need to coordinate parallel filings across venues, specifically referencing the centralisation of FRAND issues in The Hague, as a primary driver of this extra workload. They also both highlighted the burden of managing complex, highly contested confidentiality regimes early in the proceedings. While the Paris panel applied a steeper reduction to 35% and the Mannheim judge-rapporteur opted for 40%, the underlying legal reasoning is identical: procedural complexity initiated by the claimant directly diminishes the recoverable fee percentage.
What must practitioners anticipate regarding fee reimbursements after these orders?
The standard 50% reimbursement for an early withdrawal is a starting point, not an absolute entitlement. If a litigation strategy relies on complex parallel filings across multiple local and central divisions, practitioners must anticipate that the Unified Patent Court will quantify the resulting administrative burden.
Claimants must factor in a potential reduction under Rule 370.9(e) RoP when calculating the financial upside of an early settlement. This is particularly relevant in multi-jurisdictional FRAND disputes where cross-division coordination is actively requested by the parties. Furthermore, aggressively front-loading procedural disputes, such as filing highly complex confidentiality requests or early preliminary objections, will consume judicial resources that the Court will account for upon withdrawal. Practitioners should advise clients that the sheer volume of interim applications filed before a settlement will directly impact the final cost recovery.
Sources
Further Reading
Articles related to the topics covered above.
Calculating Fee Reimbursements for Cross-Year Settlements at the UPC
The Düsseldorf Local Division clarifies that the date of a withdrawal application, not the filing date of the original action, determines the applicable court fee reimbursement rate under amended Rule 370.9 RoP.
Unsubstantiated License Defenses and Accessory Liability: The Mannheim Local Division on EP 2 563 695 B1
The Mannheim Local Division clarifies the strict substantiation requirements for license defenses based on parallel national proceedings. The decision also applies the Philips v. Belkin standard to statutory corporate directors.
Late Arguments and Intermediary Liability: The Milan Local Division on EP 3 960 072 B1
The Milan Local Division clarifies the admissibility of late claim construction arguments in provisional measures and establishes the liability of EU Authorised Representatives under the Medical Devices Regulation.