TIRU v VEOLIA PROPRETE (CoA, 13 July 2026)

Date	13 July 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Withdrawal (RoP265)
Case number(s)	UPC_CoA_79/2026
Registry reference	UPC-COA-79/2026PR · UPC-COA-79/2026
Parties	TIRU v. VEOLIA PROPRETE

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

In a decision of 13 July 2026, given in the three joined appeal proceedings PR-UPC-CoA-79/2026, 80/2026 and 81/2026 (including the present one, UPC_CoA_79/2026, against Veolia Propreté), the Court of Appeal grants the withdrawal of TIRU’s appeals against the decision of the Paris Central Division of 18 March 2026 (EP 3 178 578). The interest of the decision lies in the reimbursement of court fees: the Court applies Rule 370.9(b) as in force since 1 January 2026 and limits the reimbursement to 50%, namely EUR 14,600.

Question

Does an appeal withdrawn before service entitle the appellant to a full refund of court fees, or to 60% under the former wording of Rule 370.9?

Decision

No. The withdrawal is permitted without hearing the respondents: the appeal was still under formal examination under Rule 229 and had not been served, so they had no legitimate interest in a decision on the merits (paragraphs 9 to 12). No costs decision is made, since there was no request and the respondents incurred no costs (paragraph 13). As the withdrawal request was lodged after 1 January 2026, amended Rule 370.9(b) applies and sets the refund at 50%, the short duration of the proceedings and the respondents’ lack of representation make no difference (paragraphs 14 to 17).

Key points for practice

The applicable version of Rule 370.9 is the one in force on the date of the withdrawal request, not on the date the appeal was lodged.
Practical point: an appeal withdrawn at the formal examination stage attracts only a 50% refund of court fees, however short the proceedings.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 229, 265 and 370.9
Case law cited: 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Court of Appeal, 5 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_234/2024)

Related decisions

Veolia Propreté v TIRU, 18 March 2026, Central Division decision against which the withdrawn appeals were lodged.

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

UPC_CoA_79/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantTIRU12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantVEOLIA PROPRETE2 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 retrait des appels de TIRU est accordé sans décision sur les frais, et seuls 50 % des frais de procédure (14 600 €) sont remboursés en application de la règle 370.9(b) modifiée.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 178 578 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

VEOLIA PROPRETE v TIRU (CFI, 18 March 2026) cited in this record
ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 23 July 2026) cites this decision
TIRU v VALINEA ENERGIE (CoA, 13 July 2026) cites this decision
TIRU v MAGUIN (CoA, 13 July 2026) 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 3 178 578`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): VEOLIA PROPRETE v TIRU (CFI, 18 March 2026) · TIRU v MAGUIN (CFI, 22 July 2025) · MAGUIN v TIRU (CoA, 15 July 2025) · VALINEA ENERGIE v TIRU (CoA, 15 July 2025) · TIRU v MAGUIN (CFI, 24 March 2025) · TIRU v VALINEA ENERGIE (CFI, 24 March 2025) · TIRU v VALINEA ENERGIE (CFI, 23 December 2024) · TIRU v MAGUIN (CFI, 23 December 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet link checked on 30 October 2026 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.