Electronics v Meta Platforms (CFI, 21 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

Although listed in the registry under the infringement action, the decision is an order under Rule 265 RoP: following an out-of-court settlement, the Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal of ETRI’s infringement action (filed 19 December 2025) and of Meta’s counterclaim for revocation (filed 12 May 2026), declared the proceedings closed, ordered reimbursement of 50 percent of the court fees to each withdrawing party for its respective action, and declared that no cost decision was needed since both parties waived cost reimbursement. The value of each action was set at EUR 1,000,000.

Why it matters

The order documents the standard exit route for settled UPC cases: a joint stay request, followed by Rule 265 withdrawals of both the action and the counterclaim, with each side recovering half of its court fees. It also records the court’s position on the temporal application of the Rules of Procedure, applying the current rules because the withdrawal request was made after 1 January 2026 even though the action had been filed in 2025, a point of transition law relevant to any case straddling the rule change. For settlement negotiators, the order is a reminder that fee reimbursement percentages and the possibility of waiving cost claims can be built into the settlement architecture and reflected in the closing order.

Practical point

Parties settling UPC litigation should address court fee reimbursement and mutual cost waivers expressly in the settlement, so that the closing order can record that no cost decision is required.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.