KraussMaffei Extrusion v TROESTER (CFI, ORD_41109/2024, 11 July 2024)

Date	11 July 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_40022/2024 · ORD_41109/2024
Parties	KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH

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 order of 11 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_181/2023, ACT_528357/2023, ORD_41109/2024), the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann, presiding and rapporteur, T. Pichlmaier, M. Mlakar, B. Schenk) allowed KraussMaffei Extrusion to withdraw its infringement action against TROESTER on EP 3 221 117 following a settlement, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the date for pronouncement of 3 September 2024 and ordered a refund of 20% of the court fees. The order makes clear that holding a hearing does not in itself close the oral procedure.

Question

Is the 20% refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP still available where the action is withdrawn after the oral hearing?

Decision

Yes. As the defendant had already consented to the withdrawal, no further hearing was needed. The oral procedure was not closed at the end of the hearing of 16 April 2024: the panel had left open whether an expert opinion was needed and the effect of the pending EPO Board of Appeal case (T 1570/23), set further written time limits and a date for pronouncement, and made no order declaring the oral procedure closed. The 20% refund is therefore due.

Key points for practice

Practical point: as long as no order declares the oral procedure closed, a settlement reached after the hearing may still qualify for the partial refund of court fees.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 370.9(b)(iii)

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

claimantKraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH4 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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division admet le désistement, déclare l'instance close et ordonne le remboursement de 20 % des taxes, la procédure orale n'ayant pas été close à l'issue de l'audience.
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

EP 3 221 117 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

KraussMaffei Extrusion v TROESTER (CFI, ORD_598303/2023, 11 July 2024) cites this decision

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
`EP 3 221 117`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): KraussMaffei Extrusion v TROESTER (CFI, 23 January 2024) · KraussMaffei Extrusion v TROESTER (CFI, 27 December 2023)	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.