REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - Beyond the ai hype: ai in patent prosecution
​

Termination of Proceedings

No items found.
​
October 3, 2023
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Costs
Withdrawal of an action
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Ocado Innovation Limited v. Autostore AS

Order of 11 September 2023[1] (Order ref ORD_571090/2023)

Ocado filed an infringement action against Autostore on 2 June 2023 in the Milan local division. On 3 August Ocado applied to withdraw the action, pursuant to Rule 265 RoP, and filed the consent of Autostore. Ocado requested a partial refund of the court fees pursuant to Rule 370 (9)(b) RoP, which provides for a 60% refund if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure.

In view of the defendant's consent, the judge declared the proceedings closed pursuant to Rule 265(2)(a) RoP. The requested partial fee reimbursement was also ordered.

In principle, Rule 265 (2)(c) RoP requires the Court to issue a cost decision. However, the judge noted that Rule 151 indicates that a cost decision is only issued at the request of a party, whereas neither party had requested a costs order – both parties had indicated their wish that each party bear their own costs. Therefore, no decision on costs was considered necessary.

The parties have announced settlement of all claims in their global patent dispute, so it is expected that the other two pending cases (at the Dusseldorf local division and the Nordic-Baltic local division) will be disposed of in similar terms. However, it is not possible (yet) to see publicly any final orders in these cases. It will be interesting to see whether the same approach is taken over the issue of costs.

[1] Posted on the "Decisions and Orders" section of the UPC website bearing the incorrect date of 26 June 2023 and consequently also appearing in the wrong order in the chronological decision list
https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/23-09-11-ld-milan-decision-557045_2023-upc_cfi_57_2023-anonymized.pdf

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.
​