Unified Patent Court
Einheitliches Patentgericht
Juridiction unifiee du brevet
DECISION
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Central Division (Paris Seat)
in Revocation Action UPC_CFI_122/2024
ACT_13835/2024
App_39077/2024
issued on 09 August 2024
HEADNOTES:
Rule 265 Rules of procedure (âRoPâ)
KEYWORDS:
Withdrawal
PARTIES IN THE PROCEEDINGS:
Claimant:
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH,
Niederkasseler Lohweg 18 â 40547, DĂŒsseldorf, Germany
represented by Georg Dr. Anetsberger
Defendant:
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
8, Marina boulevard05-02, Marina Bay Financial Centre, 018981, Singapore
PATENT AT ISSUE:
EP 3065184 Trench process and structure for backside contact solar cells with polysilicon doped regions
DECIDING JUDGES:
Presiding Judge: Paolo Catallozzi
Judge-Rapporteur: Tatyana Zhilova
Technically Qualified Judge: Max Tilmann
LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS:
English
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
- On 14/03/2024 the Claimant brought a revocation action against the Defendant at the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (ACT_13835/2024, UPC_CFI_122/2024), requesting the Court to revoke the European Patent No. EP3065184.
2.
On 1/07/2024 the Claimant withdrew the claim (App_39077/24) and requested the Court fees paid to be reimbursed according Rule 370 (9) (b) (i) âRoPâ.
3.
No service of the Statement for Revocation on the Defendant had been effected by the time of the withdrawal.
3.
By the Procedural Order no. ORD_41495/2024 in related proceedings Application No.: 40356/2024 the Judge-Rapporteur instructed the registry to suspend further service of the Statement of Claim and the withdrawal on the Defendant.
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION:
1.
The withdrawal of the Statement for Revocation before it has been served has the same legal effect as if it had not been lodged at all.
2.
As the claim was withdrawn before it was served, no rights and obligations arose for the Defendant. Therefore the Defendant has no legitimate interest in participating in these proceedings and need not be heard according R 265 (1) âRoPâ.
3.
There are no impediments to permitting the withdrawal and declaring the proceedings closed under Rule 265 (2) (a) âRoPâ.
4.
The Claimantâs request for reimbursement of part of the Court fees paid is well founded. According R370 (9) (b) (i) âRoPâ 60% of the Court fee is to be reimbursed if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure.
DECISION:
Based on R 265 (2) (a) (c) and R 370 (9) (b) (i) âRoPâ, the Court:
- permits the withdrawal of the Statement for Revocation registered under ACT_13835/2024.
- declares all the proceedings in case UPC_CFI_122/2024 closed.
- reimburses 60% of the Court fees paid to the Claimant.
Presiding Judge: Paolo Catallozzi
Judge-Rapporteur: Tatyana Zhilova
Technically Qualified Judge: Max Tilmann
Clerk: Margaux Grondein
Information about appeal
An appeal against the present Decision may be lodged at the Court of Appeal within two months of the date of its notification (Art. 73(1) UPCA, R. 220.1(b), 224.1(a) âRoPâ).