UPC CFI 1522/2025
Nov 11, 2025·EP3637774 SEP · METHOD FOR INDUCING PREDICTION MOTION VECTOR AND CORRESPONDING APPARATUSES
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Withdrawn)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Hisense Gorenje Austria GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Sebastian Vautz-CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbB
- Stephan Dorn-CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbB
- Markus Deck-CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbB
- Tilman Taruttis-KEENWAY Patentanwälte Neumann Heine Taruttis PartG mbB
- Jens Schwenderling-KEENWAY Patentanwälte Neumann Heine Taruttis PartG mbB
- Tobias Reker
Respondents- Electronics and Telecommunications Research InstituteUniversity / research
- Industry-university Cooperation Foundation Korea Aerospace UniversityUniversity / research
Representatives- Georg Anetsberger-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jan 28, 2026
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Paolo Catallozzi | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tatyana Zhilova | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Hisense Group (18 cases)·Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (7 cases)
4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 2051/2025·UPC CFI 716/2025·UPC CFI 648/2025·UPC CFI 1653/2026
- 2026-01-28revocation
Summary: After informing the Court that they had reached a settlement whose remaining conditions were subsequently fulfilled, the claimant applied under Rule 265(1) RoP to withdraw its revocation action against EP 3 637 774 B1; both defendants consented. The Court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the claimant's Court fees under Rule 370(9)(b)(i) RoP because the written procedure had not yet closed; no ruling was made on costs, as the parties had asked the Court not to decide that point.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Withdrawal of a revocation action under Rule 265(1) RoP following settlement
- Mootness of a pending Rule 295(d) RoP stay request once the settlement became effective
- Reimbursement of Court fees under Rule 370(9)(b)(i) RoP for withdrawal before closure of the written procedure
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-02-18 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-01-28 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-01-28 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-01-27 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-27 | Not public |
| Other document Defendant | 2026-01-27 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-01-23 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-23 | Not public |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-01-23 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-01-23 | Not public |