REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Termination of Proceedings

​
Darren Smyth
​
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a partial refund of the court fees pursuant to Rule 370 (9)(b) RoP, which provides for a 60% refund if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure.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

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​