Fapa Vital v Valentis Baltic (CFI, 27 February 2025)

Date	27 February 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Nordic Baltic Regional Division
Type of action	Withdrawal (RoP265)
Registry reference	App_7494/2025 · ORD_9485/2025
Parties	Fapa Vital AG

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 decision of 27 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_743/2024, ACT_63292/2024, ORD_9485/2025), the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (Judges Johansson, presiding and judge-rapporteur, Härmand and Knijff) closed the provisional measures proceedings brought by Fapa Vital AG against Valentis Baltic, UAB on EP 1 978 949, following a settlement and withdrawal of the application, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees. Its interest lies in applying by analogy, to an application for provisional measures, the reimbursement rules written for the withdrawal of an action.

Question

Does the partial reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b) and (c) on withdrawal or settlement apply to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures?

Decision

Yes. Those provisions refer to an « action » and assume three procedural stages that provisional measures applications do not have. The division treated this as an unintended gap and applied them by analogy, as the Munich and Düsseldorf Local Divisions had done. Withdrawal before the closure of the written procedure entitled the applicant to reimbursement of EUR 6,600 out of EUR 11,000. No costs decision was made, costs being covered by the settlement, and the value of the proceedings was not fixed.

Key points for practice

Practical point: where provisional measures proceedings settle, the applicant can seek, together with the withdrawal, reimbursement of 60% of the court fees by analogy with Rule 370.9.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 152.3, 265 and 370.9(b) and (c)
Case law cited: Munich Local Division, 15 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_515/2024, order 61204/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_133/2024, decision 39595/2024).

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: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, 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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantFapa Vital AGFollow 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): La procédure de mesures provisoires est close après transaction et retrait, et 60 % des frais de justice, soit 6 600 euros, sont remboursés par application analogique de la règle 370.9.
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 1 978 949 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 1 978 949`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)	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.