Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display (CoA, 6 March 2026)
| Date | 6 March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Withdrawal (RoP265) |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_895/2025;UPC_CoA_896/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-COA-0000895/2025& · UPC-COA-0000896/2025 |
| Parties | Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v. HL Display AB |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
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.
English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.
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.
Parties
- claimantBlack Sheep Retail Products B.V.5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHL Display AB4 decisions in the corpusFollow 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
- Withdrawal (RoP265)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le désistement d'appel de Black Sheep est autorisé et l'instance close, sans décision sur les frais. 50 % des frais d'appel sont remboursés en application de la règle 370.9, b), dans sa version en vigueur depuis le 1er janvier 2026.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 2 432 351mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- VMR Products v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, 9 January 2026) cited in this record
- Lindal Dispenser v Rocep-Lusol (CoA, 23 December 2025) cited in this record
- HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, 10 October 2025) cited in this record
- Xiaomi v Nera Innovations (CoA, 3 August 2026) cites this decision
- ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 23 July 2026) cites this decision
- Bekaert Combustion v Polidoro (CoA, UPC_CoA_30/2026, 6 July 2026) cites this decision
- Nokia Technologies v Acer (CFI, 22 June 2026) cites this decision
- Nokia Technologies v Zhejiang Geely Holding Group (CFI, 1 June 2026) cites this decision
- Avago Technologies International Sales v Telefónica Germany (CFI, 30 April 2026) cites this decision
- Nokia Technologies v VIMN Germany (CFI, 27 March 2026) cites this decision
- Nokia Technologies v Warner Bros. Discovery (CFI, 27 March 2026) 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 2 432 351 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, 10 October 2025) · Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display (CoA, 6 November 2025) · HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, ORD_35239/2025, 21 Augu · HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, ORD_28264/2025, 21 Augu · HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, 15 August 2025) | 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.