Scandit v Hand Held Products (CoA, 18 April 2025)

Date	18 April 2025
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_13022/2025 · ORD_18966/2025
Parties	Scandit AG

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 18 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_520/2024, APL_51079/2024), the Court of Appeal (Judges Grabinski, presiding, Blok and Gougé, judge-rapporteur) refused Scandit a refund of 20% of the fees for its appeal against the provisional measures order of the Munich Local Division of 27 August 2024 (EP 3 866 051). On 13 March 2025, after the hearing of 9 January 2025, Hand Held Products had sought leave to withdraw its application for provisional measures, which was allowed on 31 March 2025. The Court determined when the oral procedure closes, which governs the refund rate.

Question

Does the oral procedure within the meaning of Rule 370.9(b)(iii) close at the end of the hearing or only when the decision is given?

Decision

The refund rates (60, 40 and 20%) reflect the Court’s workload at the stage at which withdrawal is requested, which is the decisive criterion (paragraphs 10 to 12). Rules 240 and 241 concern the conduct of the hearing. The oral procedure closes when the presiding judge closes the hearing and ensures the case is ready for decision (Rule 111(b), applicable through Rule 240). Only deliberation and decision remain afterwards, a separate phase (paragraphs 14 to 16). A withdrawal requested after the hearing has closed therefore does not qualify for the 20% refund (paragraph 17).

Key points for practice

Practical point: to secure a partial refund of court fees, withdrawal must be requested before the hearing is closed.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 36(3)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 111(b), 118.6, 240, 241, 265.1, 344, 370.9(b) and 370.11
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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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

claimantScandit AG6 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 procédure orale est close à la fin de l'audience. Un désistement demandé ensuite n'ouvre pas droit au remboursement de 20 % des taxes.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 866 051 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

F. Hoffmann-La Roche v Tandem Diabetes Care (CFI, 30 June 2025) cites this decision

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 3 866 051`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Hand Held Products v Scandit (CoA, 31 March 2025) · Hand Held Products v Scandit (CFI, 18 March 2025) · Hand Held Products v Scandit (CFI, 24 February 2025) · Hand Held Products v Scandit (CoA, 11 December 2024) · Scandit v Hand Held Products (CoA, 1 November 2024) · Hand Held Products v Scandit (CFI, 27 August 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.