Opens in a new tab

Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs v Washtower IP (CoA, 3 March 2026)

Date3 March 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionWithdrawal (RoP265)
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_887/2025
Registry referenceUPC-COA-0000887/2025
PartiesIndustriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

In an order of 3 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_887/2025), the Court of Appeal permitted Washtower, with the agreement of the Bega companies, to withdraw its application for provisional measures at first instance and on appeal, after The Hague Local Division had granted those measures on 11 September 2025 on the basis of EP 3 522 755. Washtower bears the costs and must compensate the injury caused by the measures. The order is of interest for its method of setting the value in dispute of interim proceedings followed by a merits action.

Question

How should the value in dispute be set for provisional measures proceedings ended by withdrawal, where an infringement action on the merits has since been brought?

Decision

The withdrawal was permitted and the proceedings closed. Washtower bears the costs of both instances (Art. 69 UPCA, Rule 265.2(c)) and must compensate Bega under Rule 213.2 (paragraphs 8 to 10). On the value in dispute, the court applied by analogy the guidelines’ method for interim relief not followed by a merits action, namely 66% (paragraph 13). Starting from the agreed value of EUR 1,000,000 for the infringement action, it took the injunction at about 80% and set the value at EUR 530,000 (paragraph 14). The short duration of the measures is already reflected in the 66% reduction (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 62, 63 and 69(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 152.2, 213.2 and 265
Administrative Committee guidelines on recoverable costs
Principles I.1, II.1(a), II.1(b) and II.5(b)

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

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

  • UPC_CoA_887/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 24 September 2025 Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs v Washtower IP (CoA, 24 September 2025) Appeal RoP220.1 · UPC_CoA_887/2025 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    Le juge-rapporteur proroge jusqu'au 1er octobre 2025 le délai de dépôt du mémoire exposant les motifs d'appel, au lieu des deux semaines demandées.

  2. 3 March 2026 Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs v Washtower IP (CoA, 3 March 2026) Withdrawal (RoP265) · UPC_CoA_887/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Withdrawal (RoP265)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel autorise le désistement de la demande de mesures provisoires, met les frais et l'indemnisation au titre de la règle 213.2 à la charge du demandeur et fixe la valeur du litige à 530 000 euros.
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 3 522 755Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Washtower IP v Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs (CFI, 11 September · Washtower IP v Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs (CFI, 17 September
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.