Beko Germany v Dolby International (CoA, UPC_CoA_77/2026, 9 October 2026)

Date9 October 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_77/2026
Registry referenceUPC-COA-0000077/2026
PartiesBeko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v. Dolby International AB
LanguageEnglish

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 9 October 2026 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_77/2026 and UPC_CoA_78/2026, the Court of Appeal, following a settlement, permitted the withdrawal of Dolby International’s infringement action (UPC_CFI_135/2024) and of the counterclaim for revocation brought by Beko Germany and Arçelik (UPC_CFI_477/2024) concerning EP 3 605 534, and declared the proceedings closed. The Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision of 18 March 2026, which had upheld infringement and dismissed the counterclaim, thereby becomes ineffective (paragraph 9). The interest of the decision lies in the reimbursement of appeal court fees under amended Rule 370.9 RoP.

Question

Can an appellant who withdraws during the written phase of the appeal recover 50% of the appeal court fees?

Decision

Since both parties consented, neither had a legitimate interest in a decision and the withdrawals were permitted (paragraph 10); no costs decision was needed, as neither party requested one (paragraph 11). Reimbursement is available only in the situations listed in Rules 370.9 and 370.10 RoP, on a reasoned application (Rule 370.11 RoP, paragraph 12). Amended Rule 370.9, in force since 1 January 2026, applies to actions and applications filed after 31 December 2025, which covers this application (paragraph 13). The 50% rate for withdrawal before the closure of the written procedure (Rule 370.9(b) RoP) applies by analogy with Rule 265 RoP to the withdrawal of an appeal (paragraph 14); the request, made during the written phase, was granted for each of the two appeals (paragraphs 15 and 16).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 265.1, 370.9(b), 370.10 and 370.11
Case law cited
Dexcom v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 24 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_569/2024); 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Court of Appeal, 5 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_234/2024)

Related decisions

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).