Toyota Motor Europe v Neo Wireless (CFI, 31 July 2025)

Date	31 July 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_34062/2025
Parties	Toyota Motor Europe

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 an order of 31 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_361/2023, App_30331/2025), the Paris Central Division (Judges Zhilova, Haedicke, judge-rapporteur, and Matter, technically qualified judge) allowed Toyota Motor Europe to withdraw its revocation action against Neo Wireless (EP 3 876 490) and closed the proceedings, with no costs decision since none was requested. It reduced the reimbursement of court fees from the 40% sought to 20%, namely EUR 4,000, by identifying when the interim procedure ends.

Question

Does a withdrawal made after the last time limit set following the interim conference, but before any hearing, qualify for the 40% reimbursement available for withdrawal before the interim procedure closes?

Decision

No. Under Rule 110.2 RoP, the interim procedure closes when the last date set under Rules 103 and 104 RoP expires, here 16 September 2024, the withdrawal requested on 25 June 2025 came later (ground 2). Since the hearing was cancelled, the withdrawal did precede the close of the oral procedure, which warrants a 20% reimbursement under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP (grounds 3 and 4). The operative part nonetheless refers to Rule 370.9(b)(ii) RoP.

Key points for practice

The interim procedure ends when the last date set after the interim conference expires, even if the hearing is later suspended and the proceedings stayed. A later withdrawal only earns 20%.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 103, 104, 110.2, 265 and 370.9(b)

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

claimantToyota Motor Europe3 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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le retrait est autorisé et l'instance close. Le remboursement est limité à 20 %, soit 4 000 euros, la mise en état ayant pris fin à l'expiration du dernier délai fixé le 16 septembre 2024.
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 3 876 490 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 3 876 490`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Neo Wireless v Toyota Motor Europe (CoA, 4 June 2024) · Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v Neo Wireless (CFI, 25 April 2024) · Neo Wireless v Toyota Motor Europe (CoA, 11 April 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.