Irdeto v SZ DJI (CFI, 27 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 27 February 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division invited SZ DJI Technology, first defendant in Irdeto’s infringement action based on EP 2 831 787 (UPC_CFI_344/2025), to pay the fee for its counterclaim for revocation within fourteen days, failing which a decision by default may follow. The fee already paid by the three other defendants for their own counterclaim does not cover it. The point matters for corporate groups whose members are served on different dates.

Question

May a defendant that files its own counterclaim for revocation, several months after its co-defendants and in identical terms, rely on the single fee under Rule 370.7?

Decision

No. Rule 370.7 provides for only one fixed fee and, where applicable, one value-based fee where there are several defendants, so a counterclaim filed on behalf of several defendants requires one fee (paragraphs 6 and 7). SZ DJI Technology, served in November 2025, was not a party to the counterclaim filed on 13 August 2025 by Defendants 2 to 4 and filed its own some six months later: it is not the same counterclaim, even with identical content (paragraph 8). It must pay by 13 March 2026, failing which a decision by default may be given (Rule 355, paragraph 9).

Key points for practice

• The single fee under Rule 370.7 presupposes one counterclaim filed jointly. Identical content is not enough (paragraph 8).
• Practical point: a later-served defendant that cannot join its co-defendants’ counterclaim should budget for its own fee.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 70

Rules of Procedure

Rules 26, 27, 355 and 370.7

Related decisions

• Irdeto v DJI Europe, 12 June 2026, later Mannheim Local Division decision in the same proceedings.

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.