Nokia Technologies v VIMN Germany (CFI, 27 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 27 March 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division permits the withdrawal, agreed by both sides before the close of the written procedure, of Nokia Technologies’ infringement action on EP 4 250 732 against VIMN Germany and eight other defendants, including Paramount Global, and of the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_975/2025 and UPC_CFI_739/2026). The interest of the decision lies in the reimbursement of court fees: the applicable version of Rule 370.9 depends on the date on which each action was filed, not on the date of the withdrawal request.

Question

Which version of Rule 370.9 governs the reimbursement of court fees where the action was filed before 1 January 2026 and the counterclaim after that date, with the withdrawal taking place in 2026?

Decision

The withdrawals are permitted and the proceedings declared closed. No decision on the parties’ costs is required, as no application was made (paragraph 1). The amendments adopted by the Administrative Committee on 4 November 2025 apply only to actions filed after 31 December 2025: the former Rule 370.9 therefore governs an action filed before that date, even if the withdrawal request comes later (paragraph 2(a)). The infringement action qualifies for reimbursement of 60% of the fees, EUR 18,600, under former Rule 370.9(b)(i), for the counterclaim, the reasons apply 50% under the new rule (paragraph 2(b)), but the operative part orders reimbursement of 60%, EUR 12,000, without explaining the difference. The value of each action is set at EUR 3,000,000 (paragraph 3).

Key points for practice

• For the reimbursement of court fees, the filing date of each action determines the applicable version of Rule 370.9, the main action and the counterclaim may fall under different regimes (paragraph 2).
• The division notes a probably contrary view of the Court of Appeal (Black Sheep v HL Display). The point remains open.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 265 and 370.9

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 28 May 2025, UPC_CoA_808/2024, on costs, Court of Appeal, 9 March 2026, UPC_CoA_15/2026, Orthoapnea, Juul Labs v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2026, BTL v Lexter, Hamburg Local Division, 24 March 2026, probably to the contrary, Black Sheep v HL Display, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026.

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.