ICPillar v ARM (CFI, 13 December 2024)

Date	13 December 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Withdrawal (RoP265)
Registry reference	App_61630/2024 · ORD_64845/2024
Parties	ICPillar LLC

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 a decision of 13 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_495/2023, ACT_596432/2023), the Paris Local Division permitted the withdrawal of ICPillar LLC’s action for infringement of EP3000239 against ARM Limited and nine other companies, and of the counterclaims for revocation, following a confidential agreement reached in parallel US litigation. It closed the proceedings, ordered the security to be returned in full and reduced reimbursement of court fees to 40%.

Question

What rate of court fee reimbursement applies where the withdrawal comes before the close of the written procedure but shortly before the interim conference?

Decision

There being no objection to the reciprocal withdrawals, the division permitted them (Rule 265), closed the proceedings and cancelled the oral hearing of 17 January 2025. As the withdrawal preceded the close of the written procedure, the base rate would have been 60% (Rule 370.9(b)(i)), but, given the late stage of the proceedings and the work already done (all pleadings exchanged, a preliminary note from the technically qualified judge, several orders), the rate was reduced to 40% under Rule 370.9(e), while noting that the parties had acted fairly and diligently. ICPillar received EUR 44,400 rather than the EUR 66,600 sought, and ARM EUR 8,000 rather than EUR 12,000. The security ordered on 21 May 2024 is returned in full, as the proceedings end entirely, and each party bears its own costs.

Key points for practice

The rate of court fee reimbursement may be reduced where the withdrawal comes at an advanced stage of the written procedure.
Practical point: settling early, before all pleadings are exchanged, better preserves the reimbursement of court fees.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 158.1, 265, 370.9(b) and (e) and 370.11
Case law cited: ICPillar v SVF Holdco, Court of Appeal, 16 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024)

Related decisions

ICPillar v SVF Holdco, 16 September 2024, Court of Appeal order on security for 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: 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

claimantICPillar LLC7 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: Withdrawal (RoP265)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale de Paris autorise les désistements réciproques, clôt l'instance, restitue la garantie et réduit à 40 % le remboursement des taxes au regard du stade avancé de la procédure.
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

EP3000239 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

ICPillar v ARM (CoA, 16 September 2024) cited in this record

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
`EP3000239`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): ARM v ICPillar (CoA, 7 July 2024) · ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 21 May 2024) · SVF Holdco v ICPillar (CFI, 11 April 2024) · ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 28 February 2024) · ICPillar v Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. (CFI, 12 February 2024)	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.