Opens in a new tab

Avago Technologies International Sales v Telefónica Germany (CFI, 30 April 2026)

Date30 April 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1648/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_1648/2025
PartiesAvago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

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

The Düsseldorf Local Division orders that 50% of the court fees paid in infringement action UPC_CFI_1648/2025 (EP 1 954 091), namely EUR 7,500, be reimbursed to Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, and dismisses the further request for 60%. The order settles a transitional question relevant to any action filed in 2025 and withdrawn in 2026.

Question

For an action filed on 19 November 2025 and withdrawn on 3 February 2026, before the closure of the written procedure, is reimbursement governed by the former Rule 370.9 or by the version applicable since 1 January 2026?

Decision

The division applies the amended Rule 370.9(b), which provides for 50% reimbursement where the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure (paragraph 5). Article 5 of the Administrative Committee decision of 4 November 2025 makes the amended rules applicable to actions and applications filed after 31 December 2025 (paragraph 6). The relevant application is the application to withdraw of 3 February 2026, not the action itself, so the new text applies, as the Court of Appeal has held (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rule 370.9
Case law cited
Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

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_1648/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 11 February 2026 Avago Technologies International Sales v Telefónica Germany (CFI, 11 February 2026) Withdrawal (RoP265) · UPC_CFI_1648/2025

    La division locale de Düsseldorf autorise le désistement d'Avago, déclare la procédure close, constate qu'aucune décision sur les frais n'est nécessaire et fixe la valeur du litige à 1 000 000 euros.

  2. 30 April 2026 Avago Technologies International Sales v Telefónica Germany (CFI, 30 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1648/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division ordonne le remboursement de 50 % des frais de justice, soit 7 500 EUR, et rejette la demande de 60 %, la règle 370.9 modifiée s'appliquant à la demande de désistement formée le 3 février 2026.
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

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 1 954 091Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Avago Technologies International Sales v Telefónica Germany (CFI, 11 F
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.