Opens in a new tab

Appellant*** v ORTHOAPNEA (CoA, 3 July 2025)

Date3 July 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionWithdrawal (RoP265)
Registry referenceApp_23563/2025 · ORD_23914/2025
PartiesAppellant*** v. ORTHOAPNEA S.L., VIVISOL B BV

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 decision of 3 July 2025, given in Dutch, the Court of Appeal (Grabinski, Blok, Gougé) allowed the withdrawal of the appeal against the Brussels Local Division’s decision of 17 January 2025, which had dismissed the infringement actions on EP 2 331 036 against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B (UPC_CoA_232/2025). The interest lies in costs: an appellant who withdraws bears the costs of the appeal even where it withdraws early, and their amount is then fixed before the first instance division.

Question

Must an appellant that withdraws promptly, with no objection from the respondent, bear the costs of the appeal, and may the Court of Appeal fix their amount or order the resumption of the cost proceedings stayed at first instance?

Decision

The Court allowed the withdrawal by analogy with Rule 265.1 and declared the appeal proceedings closed (paragraphs 8 and 9). The appellant, treated as the unsuccessful party, must bear OrthoApnea’s reasonable and proportionate costs under Art. 69(1) UPCA, the early withdrawal bears on the amount, not on the principle (paragraphs 10 and 11). The request to fix costs at EUR 2,693.33 was inadmissible: OrthoApnea must apply to the Brussels Local Division within one month of service (Rules 265.2(c) and 151, paragraph 12). The request to resume the first instance cost proceedings was also inadmissible (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 151, 265.1 and 265.2
Case law cited
Tiroler Rohre v SSAB Swedish Steel, 3 July 2025 (Court of Appeal)

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

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

Nature of the act
Withdrawal (RoP265)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel autorise le désistement, déclare la procédure d'appel close et met les frais d'appel à la charge de l'appelant, leur montant devant être fixé par la division locale de Bruxelles.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 331 036
Device for treating night time breathing problems
recorded proprietor: Personne physique (déposant individuel)
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): OrthoApnea v *** (CFI, 25 July 2025) · OrthoApnea v *** (CFI, 2 May 2025) · OrthoApnea v *** (CoA, 21 November 2024) · *** v OrthoApnea (CFI, 17 September 2024) · OrthoApnea v *** (CoA, 26 July 2024) · OrthoApnea (CFI, 19 July 2024) · OrthoApnea (CFI, 8 July 2024) · *** v OrthoApnea (CFI, 21 September 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.