Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CoA, 24 July 2025)
| Date | 24 July 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Withdrawal (RoP265) |
| Registry reference | App_32051/2025 · ORD_33657/2025 |
| Parties | HEWLETT-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.
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
- Practical point: on appeal, reciprocal withdrawal deprives the first-instance decision of effect, settling parties need not obtain its reversal, and should withdraw before the written procedure closes to secure the 60% refund.
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
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
Parties
- claimantHEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.16 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 089 230mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 1 737 669mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 13 November 2024) cited in this record
- LIFE 365 v Hewlett-Packard Development (CoA, 21 August 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 089 230Fluid 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 669Fluid 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.