Nokia Technologies v Acer (CFI, 22 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_293/2025 (infringement) and UPC_CFI_868/2025 (counterclaim for revocation) concerning EP 2 661 892, the Munich Local Division allows the mutual withdrawals of Nokia Technologies Oy and of the defendants Acer, Inc., Acer Computer GmbH and CPYou B.V., five days before the oral hearing. It refuses any refund of court fees. It holds that the applicable version of Rule 370.9 RoP turns on the date of the application and that a refund may be refused where preparation of the hearing is well advanced.

Question

Can a party withdrawing after 31 December 2025, shortly before the hearing, obtain a partial refund of court fees, and under which version of Rule 370.9 RoP?

Decision

As neither side has a legitimate interest in a decision on the merits, the withdrawals are allowed (paragraphs 9 and 10). The division rules on costs of its own motion under Art. 69 UPCA and reads the parties’ statement that they seek no costs decision as meaning that each bears its own costs (paragraph 12).

Following the Court of Appeal, Rule 370.9 as amended on 1 January 2026 applies, the division declines to follow the contrary view of the Mannheim Local Division (paragraphs 14 to 16). The counterclaim, withdrawn on 15 June 2026 after the written procedure closed on 12 June, gives no right to a refund (paragraph 17). Nokia withdrew before that closure, but the division refuses a refund under Rule 370.9(e): the pleadings had been exchanged, the technical judge’s preliminary view was ready, the rapporteur’s was nearly complete and the hearing was less than a week away (paragraphs 18 to 21).

Key points for practice

• The refund under Rule 370.9 RoP rewards withdrawals that genuinely spare the Court the preparation of the hearing (paragraphs 20 and 21).
• The counterclaim is valued at EUR 1,500,000 against EUR 1,000,000 for the action, the guidelines allowing up to 50% more (paragraph 22).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 36, 150, 265 and 370.9

Case law cited

MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinen, Munich Local Division, 11 October 2024, VMR Products v NJOY Netherlands, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2026, Black Sheep Retail Products v HL Display, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026, Court of Appeal, 9 March 2026, UPC_CoA_15/2026, Nokia Technologies Oy v Warner Bros. Discovery, Mannheim Local Division, 27 March 2026 (not followed), Avago v Renault, Hamburg Local Division, 28 May 2026, UPC_CFI_1125/2025

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.