Opens in a new tab

Pirelli Tyre v Kingtyre Deutschland (CFI, 15 July 2025)

Date15 July 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionApplication Rop 365
Registry referenceApp_24226/2025 · ORD_24978/2025
PartiesPIRELLI TYRE S.P.A.

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 15 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_771/2024), the Milan Local Division confirmed the settlement concluded on 25 February 2025 between Pirelli Tyre and Kingtyre Deutschland in the action for infringement of EP 2 519 412, the action continuing against Tianjin Kingtyre Group. The amount paid remains confidential and Pirelli obtained reimbursement of 30% of the court fees.

Question

How is the reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP calculated where a settlement reached before the closure of the written procedure ends the action against only one of two defendants?

Decision

The panel confirmed the settlement under Rules 365.1 and 11.2 RoP, without any decision on costs, which the parties had settled between themselves (paragraphs 7 to 10). It granted the request to keep confidential the compensation and reimbursement of legal fees provided for in Article 9 of the agreement, only the redacted version of which is annexed to the order (paragraphs 11 and 12).

Since the fees are shared equally between the two defendants, the 60% reimbursement available for a settlement before the closure of the written procedure is calculated on half of the fees, that is 30% of the total (paragraphs 13 and 14).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 11.2, 150 to 156, 365.1, 365.2, 365.4 and 370.9(c)(i)

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
Application Rop 365
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La transaction entre Pirelli et Kingtyre Deutschland est confirmée, son montant reste confidentiel et 30 % des taxes judiciaires sont remboursés, l'action se poursuivant contre Tianjin Kingtyre.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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 2 519 412Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Pirelli Tyre v Tianjin Kingtyre Group (CFI, 26 May 2026) · Pirelli Tyre v TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP (CFI, 5 November 2024)
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.