CoA Luxembourg, June 4, 2024, Order On Withdrawal Of Appeal, UPC_CoA_205/2024

Bardehle Pagenberg


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.
Applicable rule for the withdrawal of an appeal: R. 265 RoP, which has a broad scope
Luxembourg Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on

1. Key takeaways

Applicable rule for the withdrawal of an appeal: R. 265 RoP, which has a broad scope

R. 265 RoP is primarily drafted with a view to comprehensive withdrawals of whole actions. It does neither distinguish between the first instance and the appeal proceedings nor between procedural appeal and appeals in substance. It does also not exclude the possibility to apply for a withdrawal for any category of action or stage of proceedings.

Withdrawal is nevertheless subject to observance of the rights of the respondent and proper conduct of proceedings

According to R. 265 RoP, it is in the discretion of the Court to decide on an application to withdraw. It is clearly stipulated that the other party shall be heard and that the other party's interests shall be considered.

Main consideration for legitimate interests: content of the order or decision under appeal, and how a withdrawal would effect the respondent

If an appellant applies to withdraw an appeal in relation to only some of several respondents, the CoA decides on the admissibility and legal consequences of such an application

Whether an appeal can be withdrawn in relation to one or two of several respondents would depend on the circumstances of the case. The CoA will consider whether those respondents have already been served the Statement of grounds of appeal, whether they want the appeal to be adjudicated in relation to themselves as respondents and whether they have a legitimate interest in adjudication.

2. Division

Court of Appeal Luxembourg

3. UPC number


4. Type of proceedings

Procedural order

5. Parties

Appellant (and Claimant in the main proceedings): Nera Innovations Ltd.

Respondents (and Defendants in the main proceedings): Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, et al.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 642 632

7. Rules

Rule 265 RoP

To view the full article click here

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.

See More Popular Content From

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