Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Deutschland (CFI, UPC_CFI_629/2025, 28 May 2026)

Date	28 May 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_629/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_629/2025
Parties	Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Renault Deutschland AG a.o.

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 a decision of 28 May 2026, following a settlement, the Düsseldorf Local Division permits Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited to withdraw infringement action UPC_CFI_629/2025 concerning EP 3 651 429, and Renault Deutschland AG and the four other defendants to withdraw counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_1292/2025. It refuses the 60% fee refund sought by the claimant and grants 50% to each side, confirming that the amended Rule 370.9(b) applies to pending proceedings.

Question

Does a withdrawal filed in May 2026, in an action brought in July 2025, attract the 60% refund provided for by Rule 370.9(b)(i) as worded before 1 January 2026?

Decision

The withdrawals, consented to on both sides before the written procedure closed, are permitted. No costs decision is needed because the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs (paragraphs 8 and 9). The amendments to Rule 370.9 apply to applications filed after 31 December 2025, as the applications to withdraw are dated 12 May 2026, the applicable rate is 50% and the request for 60% is not granted (paragraphs 10 to 14). The value in dispute is set at EUR 1,000,000 for the action and EUR 1,500,000 for the counterclaim.

Key points for practice

The 60% refund under the former Rule 370.9(b)(i) is no longer available for an application to withdraw filed after 31 December 2025 (paragraphs 12 to 14).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 265.1, 265.2 and 370.9
Case law cited: DexCom v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 24 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_569/2024), VMR Products v NJOY Netherlands, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2026, Hurom v NUC Electronics, Court of Appeal, 26 May 2026

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: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

UPC_CFI_629/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantAvago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited28 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantRenault Deutschland AG a.o4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les désistements réciproques sont admis sans décision sur les frais, et le remboursement des taxes est fixé à 50 %, la demande de 60 % fondée sur l'ancienne règle 370.9, b), i), étant écartée.
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 3 651 429 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Hurom v NUC Electronics (CoA, 26 May 2026) cited in this record
VMR Products v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, 9 January 2026) cited in this record
Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Deutschland (CFI, UPC_CFI_1292/2025, 28 May 2026) cites this decision
Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Retail Group Deutschland (CFI, ORD_34625/2025, 5 September 2025) cites this decision

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 3 651 429`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Avago Technologies International Sales v Hyundai Motor Deutschland (CF · Avago Technologies International Sales v Renault Retail Group Deutschl	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.