Termination of Proceedings

​
Darren Smyth
​
October 3, 2023
#
UPC
#
Recent cases
#
Costs
#
Withdrawal of an action
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a partial refund of the court fees pursuant to Rule 370 (9)(b) RoP, which provides for a 60% refund if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure.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

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​