Koninklijke Philips v Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology (CFI, 15 November 2024)

Date	15 November 2024
Court	CFI
Registry reference	App_60676/2024 · ORD_61204/2024

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 order of 15 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_515/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division ordered the reimbursement to Koninklijke Philips of 60% of the court fees, namely EUR 6,600 out of EUR 11,000, after it withdrew its ex parte application for provisional measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology based on EP 3 197 316. Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP, written for the withdrawal of an action, applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures before the close of the written procedure. The value in dispute was set at EUR 250,000.

Question

Does the partial reimbursement of court fees available on withdrawal of an action (Rule 370.9(b) RoP) extend to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures?

Decision

The wording of Rule 370.9(b) covers only actions, by reference to Rule 265 and to the stages of main proceedings under Rule 10, direct application is excluded (paragraph 1(a)). There is, however, an unintended gap, and the interests are comparable: reimbursement reflects the work saved by the court and the opponent and encourages early withdrawal. The rule therefore applies by analogy, even though the summary procedure under Rule 205, which has no interim procedure, in practice only allows reimbursement of 60% or 20% (paragraph 1(b)). As the withdrawal came the day after filing, before the close of the written procedure, 60% of the fees were reimbursed (paragraph 2), and the Registry was instructed to pay as soon as possible.

Key points for practice

Practical point: an applicant that promptly withdraws an application for provisional measures may obtain, on an express request (Rule 370.11), reimbursement of 60% of the fees paid.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 10, 205, 206, 209.2, 265, 370.9(b) and 370.11
Case law cited: Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 2024, UPC_CFI_133/2024 (Rule 370.9(c)).

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Parties not recorded.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La règle 370.9 b) i) s'applique par analogie au retrait d'une demande de mesures provisoires avant la clôture de la procédure écrite : 60 % des frais, soit 6 600 euros, sont remboursés.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 197 316 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 197 316`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Koninklijke Philips v Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology (CFI, 9	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.