Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 16 January 2025)

Date	16 January 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Withdrawal (RoP265)
Registry reference	App_66712/2024 · ORD_68807/2024
Parties	Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE

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 16 January 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division, Dr Schilling, permitted Tesla Germany and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg to withdraw their application for the determination of costs (UPC_CFI_54/2023) and declared those proceedings closed, after the parties had withdrawn, on appeal, Avago Technologies International Sales’ infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation. The merits decision of 26 August 2024 had dismissed the action, partly upheld the counterclaims and apportioned costs 85% to the claimant and 15% to the defendants. The order, which carries headnotes, settles a point of internal competence that is useful at the end of a case.

Question

Which formation is competent to permit withdrawal of an application for the determination of costs pending at first instance where the main proceedings are before the Court of Appeal?

Decision

The Court of Appeal decides on the withdrawal of the action and counterclaims once an appeal has been lodged. However, the application for the determination of costs remains pending at first instance, which therefore remains competent. Withdrawal of that application also requires the Court’s leave, Rule 265 RoP applying by analogy to cost proceedings. As this is not a case management measure under Rules 331 et seq. RoP but a substantive decision within the judge-rapporteur’s own competence under Rule 156.2 RoP, the judge-rapporteur alone is competent to permit the withdrawal. The claimant having consented, the withdrawal was allowed.

Key points for practice

Withdrawal of an application for the determination of costs is a matter for the first instance judge-rapporteur, even where the main case is on appeal.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 150, 156, 265, 295 and 331
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, 15 January 2025, UPC_CoA_629/2024

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: 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).

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

claimantTesla Germany GmbH16 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantTesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE15 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: Withdrawal (RoP265)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur de première instance, seul compétent au titre de la règle 156.2, autorise le désistement de la demande de fixation des frais et déclare la procédure close, bien que le litige principal soit en appel.
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.

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.

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.