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.
The financial mechanics of settling a dispute at the Unified Patent Court have shifted since the Administrative Committee amended the table of court fees. When parties reach an out-of-court settlement and withdraw their actions, the exact date of that withdrawal dictates the reimbursement rate under Rule 370.9 RoP, a principle the Düsseldorf Local Division has now applied to proceedings spanning the 2025 and 2026 calendar years.
Settling the dispute over EP 3 651 429
In July 2025, Avago Technologies filed an infringement action against Renault before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 651 429. The defendants responded with a counterclaim for revocation in October 2025. Before the written procedure closed, the parties successfully negotiated an out-of-court settlement.
On 12 May 2026, both sides submitted written requests to withdraw their respective actions. The panel permitted the withdrawals under Rule 265.1 RoP. A procedural efficiency emerged regarding the allocation of costs. While Rule 265.2(c) RoP mandates a cost decision when a withdrawal is permitted, the panel dispensed with this requirement. Because the settlement explicitly provided that each party would bear its own costs, the panel cited the Court of Appeal order in UPC_CoA_569/2024 (DexCom v. Abbott) to conclude that separate proceedings for a cost decision were unnecessary.
The temporal application of amended fee rules
The core legal question in UPC_CFI_629/2025 concerned the applicable rate for reimbursing the court fees. Both parties requested a 60 % reimbursement. This request was grounded in the previous version of Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP, which was in force until 31 December 2025. Under that regime, a party withdrawing an action before the closure of the written procedure was entitled to a 60 % refund.
However, the Administrative Committee modified Rule 370.9 RoP, effective 1 January 2026, reducing the reimbursement rate for this procedural stage to 50 %. The parties seemingly operated under the assumption that the fee regime in place at the commencement of the litigation would govern its conclusion.
The trigger date for reimbursement rates
The panel rejected the requests for a 60 % refund. Relying on appellate jurisprudence, specifically CoA_257/2025 (VMR Products v. NJOY) and UPC_CoA_916/2025 (Hurom v. NUC Electronics), the division clarified the temporal boundary of the rule change. The panel held that when an application for withdrawal and reimbursement is filed after 1 January 2026, reimbursement shall therefore be ordered in accordance with the new provision (reasons 12).
The filing date of the underlying action does not freeze the applicable fee regime. Because the applications to withdraw were filed on 12 May 2026, the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applied. Consequently, the panel held that reimbursement by 50 % is to be ordered (reasons 14). The court directed the Registrar to refund € 7,500 for the infringement action and € 9,500 for the counterclaim for revocation.
Practical implications
This order establishes a clear framework for finalising settlements and calculating fee recoveries at the Unified Patent Court. Practitioners negotiating settlements must account for the following procedural realities:
- The financial benefits of an early withdrawal are governed strictly by the rules in force at the moment the withdrawal application is filed, not when the suit was initiated.
- A formal cost decision under Rule 265.2(c) RoP can be bypassed if the parties explicitly confirm to the court that they agree to bear their own costs and will not file cost applications.
By aligning the reimbursement rate with the date of the withdrawal request, the court ensures a uniform application of the current fee schedule, providing a predictable mechanism for closing proceedings.
Sources
Further Reading
Articles related to the topics covered above.
Judicial Silence and the Discretionary Review of Value Determinations
The Court of Appeal clarifies that a local division's failure to respond to a request for leave to appeal within fifteen days constitutes an effective refusal. This triggers the deadline for a discretionary review request.
Territorial Carve-Outs and the Boundaries of Claim Limitation: Two Orders from Brussels
The Brussels Local Division clarifies the procedural mechanics of dropping a national designation from a pending action. Two coordinated orders explain why limiting a claim does not automatically trigger a formal withdrawal or immediate cost awards.
Security for Costs and the Timing of Litigation Insurance at the CoA
The Court of Appeal confirms that claimants relying on litigation insurance to avoid security for costs must secure it before the first instance order. Unaccepted FRAND bank guarantees also fail to negate cost recovery risks.