UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1048/2025

Oct 10, 2025·EP4146335 Unitary patent · DEVICE AND METHOD FOR UNATTENDED TREATMENT OF A PATIENT

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Settled)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
  • Alexandros Stavrinadis
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jan 16, 2026
Last decision
Aug 13, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked

At the UPC: BTL Medizintechnik GmbH (2 cases)·Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. (2 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-08-13
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division declared inadmissible a R. 370.11 RoP application for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, filed in a case that had already been closed following withdrawal. The Court held that no submission may be filed in a closed case without first applying to reopen it, that the claimant had forfeited the right by telling the Court no cost decision was needed, and that filing almost two months after closure was in any event unreasonable. Leave to appeal was granted.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • admissibility of filings in a closed case
    • reimbursement of court fees
    • R. 370.9(b) and R. 370.11 RoP
    • forfeiture where no cost decision was requested
    • reasonable time limit for a reimbursement request
  • 2026-01-16
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Hague Local Division allowed BTL Medizintechnik GmbH's withdrawal of its infringement action against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. following a settlement. The proceedings were declared closed with no cost decision required.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Withdrawal Rule 265.1 RoP
    • Settlement
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Publication of order2026-08-13Not public
Order2026-08-13Not public
Order2026-08-13Public
Receipt2026-03-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-11Not public
Application document Claimant2026-03-11Not public
Case closed2026-01-16Not public
Decision2026-01-16Not public
Decision2026-01-16Public
Receipt2026-01-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-14Not public
Document2026-01-14Not public
Communication2026-01-14Not public
Receipt2026-01-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-14Not public
Application document Claimant2026-01-14Not public
Publication2026-01-06Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2025-10-28Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-10Not public
Other document2025-10-10Not public
Receipt2025-10-10Not public
Formal Deficiency found2025-10-09Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-07Not public
Fee2025-10-07Not public
Statement of claim2025-10-07Not public
Proof of payment2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Exhibit2025-10-07Not public
Receipt2025-10-07Not public
Coverage: Thin.Reasoning extracted with limited coverage — see decisions tab for full text.
Plain-English summary

BTL Medizintechnik GmbH withdrew its infringement action against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. concerning EP 4 146 335 (unattended electrotherapy treatment device) following an out-of-court settlement, with The Hague Local Division declaring the proceedings closed and confirming no costs order was required.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

No accepted arguments captured.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

No rejected arguments captured.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
A claimant may withdraw an infringement action at any time before a final decision if the defendant has no legitimate interest in continuation (R. 265.1 RoP)

Browse other cases on this principle.