Opens in a new tab

Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CoA, 24 July 2025)

Date24 July 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionWithdrawal (RoP265)
Registry referenceApp_32051/2025 · ORD_33657/2025
PartiesHEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P

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 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_24/2025 and UPC_CoA_23/2025), the Court of Appeal (Presiding Judge Grabinski, Judge Gougé as judge-rapporteur, and Judge Germano) granted the reciprocal withdrawals of Hewlett-Packard Development Company and LAMA France, which had each appealed the Paris Local Division’s decision of 13 November 2024 (revocation of EP 2 089 230, infringement of EP 1 737 669). Its interest lies in one point: the proceedings being closed, the decision on the merits and the costs order of 10 January 2025 have no effect, and there is no need to set them aside.

Question

Where both appellants withdraw following a settlement, must the Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance decision, as the parties requested?

Decision

No. As no final decision had been given, the withdrawals are admissible (paragraphs 10 and 11), the mutual consents exclude any legitimate interest in a decision, and the proceedings are closed (paragraph 12). The decision on the merits and the order therefore have no effect, so there is no need to set them aside (paragraph 13). No costs decision is made, at the parties’ request (paragraph 14). As the written procedure had not closed, each party obtains reimbursement of 60% of its appeal court fees (paragraphs 15 and 16).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 265 and 370.9(b)(i)
Case law cited
Avago v Tesla, Court of Appeal, 15 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_637/2024, 638/2024 and 639/2024, UPC_CoA_629/2024, 631/2024 and 632/2024)

Related decisions

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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

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 cour d'appel accorde les désistements réciproques, déclare la procédure close, juge que la décision au fond et l'ordonnance sur les frais sont dépourvues d'effet sans qu'il y ait lieu de les infirmer, et rembourse 60 % des frais de procédure.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 089 230
Fluid ejection device with data signal latch circuitry
recorded proprietor: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 13 November 2024) · LIFE 365 v HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CFI, 18 April 2025) · Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CFI, 27 August 2024 · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 21 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 2 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 18 December 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 1 737 669
Fluid ejection device
recorded proprietor: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 13 November 2024) · LIFE 365 v HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CFI, 18 April 2025) · Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CFI, 27 August 2024 · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 21 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 2 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 18 December 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.