QUALCOMM (CFI, 24 October 2024)

Date	24 October 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_52964/2024 · ORD_53290/2024
Parties	QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

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 24 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_427/2024, App_52964/2024, ORD_53290/2024), the presiding judge of the Paris Central Division (F. Butin), sitting alone, dismissed Qualcomm’s application for reimbursement of court fees made after the closure of its action against an EPO decision concerning EP 3 516 914, taken under Art. 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012.

Question

Can an application for reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.11 RoP succeed when made after a closure order that has already declined any reimbursement?

Decision

Qualcomm had brought an action on 19 July 2024 against an EPO decision of 10 July 2024, the EPO rectified its decision on 13 August 2024 and the Court closed the case on 13 September 2024 under Rule 91.2 RoP, finding no particular reason to order reimbursement. On 23 September Qualcomm sought full reimbursement, or alternatively 60% or 25%. The presiding judge notes that Rule 91.2 RoP allows full or partial reimbursement on closure and that Rule 370.9 RoP provides reduced rates depending on the course of the proceedings. Rule 370.11 RoP allows a reasoned application, but the Court cannot revisit its earlier order on the same subject matter. That order, made by a single judge, was open to appeal. The application is dismissed, and the order may be appealed under Rule 220 RoP.

Key points for practice

Practical point: in an action against an EPO decision that may be rectified, any request for reimbursement of fees should be made before the closure order, otherwise, only an appeal against that order remains available.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 88, 91, 220 and 370
Other provisions: Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012, Art. 9
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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

claimantQUALCOMM INCORPORATEDnormalised name: Qualcomm Incorporated25 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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): La demande de remboursement des frais de justice présentée après l'ordonnance de clôture est rejetée, la juridiction ne pouvant revenir sur sa précédente décision portant sur le même objet.
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

EP 3 516 914 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 516 914`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): QUALCOMM v EPO (CFI, 13 September 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.