Düsseldorf Local Division
UPC_CFI_99/2024
UPC_CFI_392/2024

Decision
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 5 September 2025
concerning EP 2 263 098 B1

CLAIMANT:
Ona Patents SL, represented by its CEO Raúl Diaz Morales, Carrer de Calàbria 149 En. 1, 08015
Barcelona, Spain
Represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Christof Augenstein, Attorney-at-law Dr Bene-
dikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augenstein
Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany
Electronic address for service: augenstein@katheraugenstein.com

COUNTER-DEFENDANT 2:
Ekahau Oy, represented by the Board of Directors Jeremy Rossen, Brian Conrad Stewart und Ari
Olavi Tourunen, Jaakonkatu 5, 00100, Helsinki, Finland
Represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Christof Augenstein, Attorney-at-law Dr Benedikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf,
Germany
Patent Attorney Dipl.-Ing. Benjamin Bubendorfer, Patent Attorney
M. Sc. Andreas Rauscher, WBH Wachenhausen Patentanwälte
PartGmbB, Müllerstraße 40, 80469 Munich, Germany
Electronic address for service: augenstein@katheraugenstein.com

DEFENDANTS:
1. Apple Inc., represented by its CEO Tim Cook, One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, CA 95014, USA
2. Apple Distribution International Ltd., represented by its Directors Cathy Kearny, Michael
O’Sullivan and Peter Denwood, Hollyhill Industrial Estate, Hollyhill, Cork, T23 YK84, Republic
of Irland
3. Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, represented by its personally liable partner Apple Hold-
ing B.V., represented by its CEO Alexander Niemczyk, Michael Joseph Boyd und Peter Ronald
Denwood, Maximilianstraße 54, 80538 Munich, Germany
4. Apple GmbH, represented by its CEOs Michael Joseph Boyd und Peter Ronald Denwood,
Katharina-von-Bora-Str. 3, 80333 Munich, Germany
5. Apple Retail France EURL, represented by its CEOs Peter Ronald Denwood und Éamonn
Clancy, 3-5 rue Saint Georges, 75009 Paris, France
All Defendants represented by: Attorney-at-law Prof Dr Tilman Müller-Stoy, Attor-
ney-at-law Dr Tobias Wuttke, Bardehle Pagenberg
Partnerschaft mbB, Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675
München, Germany
Electronic address for service: mueller-stoy@bardehle.com

PATENT IN SUIT:
European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1

PANEL/DIVISION:
Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf

DECIDING JUDGES:
This decision was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur, legally qualified
judge Dr Thom, legally qualified judge Kokke and technically qualified judge Myon.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 265.1 RoP – Application for leave to withdraw the action

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:
On 14 March 2024, the Claimant filed a patent infringement action against the Defendants.
All Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 5 August 2025. Defendants of the counter-
claim for revocation are the Claimant and the Counter-Defendant 2).
Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew its infringement action by
brief dated 1 September 2025.
According to the Claimant, the parties agreed that each party shall bear its own costs. Applications
for a cost decision will not made. Therefore, according to the Claimant, separate proceedings for
a cost decision are not necessary pursuant to R. 150 ff. RoP.
In the same submission, the Claimant and the Counter-Defendant 2) agreed to the withdrawal of
the counterclaim for revocation to be declared by the Defendants.
On 3 September 2025, the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal of the infringement action and
withdrew Defendant’s 1) – 5) counterclaim for revocation.
At the same time, Defendants confirmed that the parties agreed that each party shall bear its own
costs. They also confirmed that applications for a cost decision will not be made and that they
share the Claimants’ view that there is no need for a cost decision according to R. 150 ff. RoP.

GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION:
The decision follows the parties’ jointly expressed will.
Although R. 265.2(c) RoP provides that a decision on costs is to be taken in accordance with Part
1, Chapter 5, no such decision is required here since both parties have declared that they have
agreed that each party shall bear its own costs and that separate proceedings for a cost decision
are not necessary (cf. UPC_CoA_569/2024, Order of 24 January 2025 – DexCom v. Abbott).

ORDER:
1. The withdrawal of the infringement action is allowed at the application of the Claimant
and with the consent of the Defendants.
2. The withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation is allowed at the application of the
Defendants and with the consent of the Claimant and Counter-Defendant 2).
3. The oral hearing scheduled for 29 October 2025 and 30 October 2025 is cancelled.
2. The proceedings referred to in points 1. and 2. are declared closed.
3. This decision shall be entered in the register.
4. A cost decision is not required.
5. The value in dispute for the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation is
set at € 6,000,000,00 each.

DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
App_35850/2025 and App_36054/2025 under main file references ACT_11910/2024 and CC_40010/2024
UPC-Number: UPC_CFI_99/2024 and UPC_CFI_392/2024
Subject of the Proceedings: Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation

Issued in Düsseldorf on 5 September 2025