ARTICLE
19 March 2026

Court Of Appeal, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_934/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The Court of Appeal clarified that the term "action" (Klage) in Rule 265.1 RoP encompasses applications for provisional measures.
Germany Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Transport topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Rule 265 RoP applies to applications for provisional measures, not only to "actions" in the narrow sense.

The Court of Appeal clarified that the term "action" (Klage) in Rule 265.1 RoP encompasses applications for provisional measures. The withdrawal mechanism is therefore not limited to main proceedings such as infringement or revocation actions but extends to interim relief proceedings as well.

Rule 265 RoP is applicable in appeal proceedings, allowing withdrawal before a final appellate decision is rendered.

The applicants withdrew their application for provisional measures during the pending appeal, before a final decision had been issued. The Court confirmed that Rule 265.1 RoP applies at the appeal stage, provided that the withdrawal is declared before the Court renders its final decision in the appeal proceedings.

Withdrawal must be permitted unless legitimate interests of the opposing party stand against it (Rule 265.1, sentence 3 RoP).

The Court found no legitimate interests of the appellants that would oppose the withdrawal. On the contrary, both parties confirmed they had reached an out-of-court settlement, and the appellants expressly consented to the withdrawal of the application for provisional measures.

No cost decision is required under Rule 265.2(c) RoP where the parties unanimously agree that each side bears its own costs.

Pursuant to Rule 265.2 RoP, the Court must ordinarily issue a cost decision upon permitting a withdrawal. However, where both parties unanimously agree that each bears its own costs and no inter-party reimbursement takes place, the Court held that a separate cost decision is unnecessary. 

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_934/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal in proceedings for provisional measures

5. Parties

Applicants / Respondents in Appeal: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH

vs.

Respondents / Appellants: A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG (trading as A. Menarini Diagnostics Deutschland), A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU

6. Patent(s)

EP 1 962 668

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 265.1 RoP, R. 265.2 RoP, Art. 79 UPCA

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More