Opens in a new tab

N.V. Nutricia v Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) (CFI, 30 July 2025)

Date30 July 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_6997/2024 · ORD_9832/2024
PartiesN.V. Nutricia

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 a decision of 30 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_201/2023), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Judges Thomas, presiding, Thom, judge-rapporteur, Agergaard and Hedberg, technically qualified judge), with the defendant’s consent, allowed N.V. Nutricia to withdraw its infringement action against Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) (EP 2 359 858), declared the counterclaim for revocation disposed of, the patent having meanwhile been finally revoked, and ordered Nutricia to bear the costs of both proceedings. It set the value of the action at EUR 250,000 and that of the counterclaim at EUR 500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees.

Question

How should the value in dispute be set after a consensual withdrawal, where the parties’ figures differ widely (EUR 1,000,000 and EUR 1,500,000 according to the defendant)?

Decision

Under Rules 22 and 370.6 RoP, the Division takes the parties’ figures into account but assesses the claimant’s objective interest when the action was filed, following the Court of Appeal in Microsoft v Suinno. Where the parties settle out of court, an estimate suffices without a thorough examination of each factor (ground 4(a)). The interest in prohibiting the recommendation or offer of the product for reducing respiratory tract infections in the States covered, given the remaining patent term and estimated turnover, justifies EUR 250,000 (ground 4(b)). The 50% increase for the counterclaim remains appropriate because revocation has erga omnes effect (ground 4(c)).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 22, 265.2, 360, 370.6 and 370.9(b)
Case law cited
Microsoft v Suinno, Court of Appeal, 23 December 2024 (UPC_CoA_826/2024)

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

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)
Le retrait est autorisé, la demande reconventionnelle déclarée éteinte, les frais mis à la charge de Nutricia. Valeurs fixées à 250 000 et 500 000 euros, 60 % des frais de justice remboursés.
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

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 359 858Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): N.V. Nutricia v Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) (CFI, 19 December · Nutricia v Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) (CFI, 14 December 2023) · N.V. Nutricia v Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) (CFI, 22 September
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.