Tiroler Rohre v SSAB Swedish Steel (CFI, 24 October 2024)

Date	24 October 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_33127/2024 · ORD_34196/2024
Parties	Tiroler Rohre GmbH

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 decision of 24 October 2024, the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann, presiding, M. Kokke, T. Pichlmaier, rapporteur, D. Kretschmann) allowed, over the defendants’ objection, the withdrawal of Tiroler Rohre’s application for provisional measures against SSAB Swedish Steel and SSAB Europe under EP 2 839 083, and ordered the applicant to bear all costs, including those of the protective letter.

Question

Does a defendant have a legitimate interest, within Rule 265.1 RoP, in opposing the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures after the oral hearing, and who bears the costs, including those of a protective letter?

Decision

The application, filed on 5 March 2024, was withdrawn on 3 June 2024, after a hearing on 6 May at which the division voiced doubts. A dismissal would have no res judicata effect and would not prevent a fresh application, so the defendants have no legitimate interest in a decision, even after the hearing (paragraph 1). Defence costs are a matter for the costs decision, and the filing of the main action, on which a dismissal of the provisional application would have no bearing, does not create such an interest either (paragraph 2). By withdrawing, the applicant puts itself in the position of the unsuccessful party and bears the costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA) (paragraph 3), including those of the protective letter, which are costs of an anticipated defence (paragraph 4). Nothing in the UPCA or the Rules allows each party to bear its own costs provisionally (paragraph 5).

Key points for practice

Practical point: an application for provisional measures may still be withdrawn after the hearing, but the applicant then bears all costs, including those of the opponent’s protective letter.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts. 69(1) and 73(1)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 220.1 and 265.1
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

claimantTiroler Rohre GmbH5 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): Le retrait de la demande de mesures provisoires est autorisé faute d'intérêt légitime des défenderesses à une décision, et la demanderesse supporte tous les frais, y compris ceux du mémoire préventif.
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 2 839 083 B9 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Tiroler Rohre v SSAB Swedish Steel (CoA, 3 July 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 2 839 083 B9`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Tiroler Rohre v SSAB Europe (CFI, 6 June 2025)	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.