Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 28 August 2025)

Date	28 August 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_35652/2025 · ORD_35704/2025
Parties	Faro Technologies, Inc.

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 an order of 28 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_500/2025, ORD_35704/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division refused Faro Technologies reimbursement of 60% of the court fees attributable to its application for provisional measures (EP 4 001 835), withdrawn on 26 August 2025 against PMT Technologies (Suzhou), one of the two respondents. Rule 370.9(b)(i) does not apply to applications for provisional measures.

Question

Does the partial reimbursement of court fees on withdrawal under Rule 370.9(b) apply, directly or by analogy, to an application for provisional measures withdrawn against only one respondent?

Decision

No. The rule refers to actions, and the procedural stages it lists do not exist in provisional measures proceedings, where an oral hearing is not always held. The fee for such an application is already substantially lower than for an action, so no further reduction is provided for or required. In any event, withdrawal against a single respondent would not justify a partial refund, since the fixed fee does not depend on the number of parties. As reimbursement concerns only the Court and the fee debtor, there was no need to hear the other side.

Key points for practice

Practical point: an applicant withdrawing a request for provisional measures cannot expect any refund of the fee, even a partial one.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 62
Rules of Procedure: Rules 206 and 370.9(b)(i)

Related decisions

Blankenhorn, 29 August 2025, order declaring the proceedings terminated against the other respondent and ruling on costs.

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

claimantFaro Technologies, Inc.2 decisions in the corpus Follow 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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le remboursement de 60 % des frais de justice est refusé, la règle 370.9 (b) (i) ne s'appliquant ni directement ni par analogie aux demandes de mesures provisoires.
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 4 001 835 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 29 August 2025) cited in this record
Edwards Lifesciences v Sintec (CFI, 5 September 2025) 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 4 001 835`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Faro v Blankenhorn (CFI, 11 November 2025) · Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 29 August 2025) · Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 17 July 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.