NovaCloud Licensing v Meta Platforms Ireland (CFI, UPC_CFI_1310/2025, 18 September 2026)
| Date | 18 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1310/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0001310/2025 |
| Parties | NovaCloud Licensing LLC v. Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, Edge Network Services Limited, Meta Platforms, Inc. |
| Language | English |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By decision of 18 September 2026 (UPC_CFI_1310/2025, infringement, and UPC_CFI_1737/2026, counterclaim for revocation, EP 4 024 777), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division permitted the mutual withdrawals of NovaCloud Licensing and of Meta Platforms, Edge Network Services and Meta Platforms Ireland, made before the closure of the written procedure, and declared the proceedings closed (Rule 265 RoP). No party requested a costs decision. The issue was the reimbursement rate for court fees: NovaCloud sought 60% on the ground that its action had been filed before Rule 370.9 RoP was amended, it obtained only 50%.
Question
Which version of Rule 370.9(b) RoP governs reimbursement where the action was filed before 1 January 2026 and withdrawal was sought afterwards?
Decision
The decisive date is that of the Rule 265 application, filed on 17 September 2026, not that of the statement of claim. The version of Rule 370.9(b) RoP in force since 1 January 2026 therefore applies, in line with Court of Appeal case law. NovaCloud is reimbursed 50% of its fees, i.e. EUR 7,500, and its further request is rejected. The defendants are reimbursed EUR 9,950. No exceptional circumstances justified a lower reimbursement (Rule 370.9(e) RoP). The value of each claim was set at EUR 1,000,000.
Key points for practice
- For an action filed under the former fee rules, the reimbursement rate on withdrawal depends on the date of the withdrawal application, not on the date the action was brought.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 265, 370.9(b) and (e) and 370.11
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal, 24 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_840/2024), Court of Appeal, 31 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_520/2024), Amgen v Regeneron, Court of Appeal, 24 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_646/2025)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).
Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).