Chainzone Technology (Foshan) v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme (CoA, 27 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 27 November 2025, the Court of Appeal permits STRABAG to withdraw its appeal against the Vienna Local Division’s decision of 15 January 2025 (EP 2 643 717), following a settlement with SWARCO, and declares proceedings UPC_CoA_70/2025 closed. The appeal brought by Chainzone, which had intervened in support of STRABAG, is dismissed as having become devoid of purpose (Rule 360), and Chainzone bears its own costs. The decision, given in both appeals, clarifies where an intervener stands when the party it supports settles without it.

Question

Can an intervener oppose the withdrawal of the appeal of the party it supports, and have its own appeal decided, where that party has settled without it?

Decision

No. Only the interest of SWARCO, the opposing party, counts when assessing a legitimate interest in a decision under Rule 265.1, SWARCO having consented, the withdrawal is permitted (paragraphs 13 to 15). An intervener may not act inconsistently with the party it supports, so Chainzone’s objection is inadmissible (paragraph 16). Having no independent standing, the intervener’s appeal becomes devoid of purpose, costs included (paragraphs 17 and 22). The binding effect of the first instance decision on the intervener (Rule 316.3) is, however, limited, and Chainzone may rely on this in later proceedings (paragraphs 19 and 20). Treated in the same way as STRABAG, which by withdrawing put itself in the position of the unsuccessful party, Chainzone bears its own costs (paragraphs 23 to 25).

Key points for practice

• An intervener’s appeal stands or falls with the supported party: a settlement reached without the intervener ends its appeal, and it cannot object.
• The Court leaves open a claim for compensation for enforcement damage, by analogy with Rule 354.2, should the intervener’s grounds later prove well founded (paragraph 22).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 61, 265.1, 313.2, 315.4, 316.3, 354.2 and 360

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 10 July 2024, UPC_CoA_249/2024, Stäubli Tec-Systems, Court of Appeal, 26 March 2025.

Related decisions

• SWARCO FUTURIT v STRABAG, 16 January 2025, the Vienna Local Division decision under appeal.

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.