Appeal n°:
UPC_CoA_23/2025
APL_1991/2025
App_33358/2025

ORDER
of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court
concerning a request under R. 265 RoP to withdraw an application to intervene (R. 313 RoP)
issued on 21 August 2025

APPLICANTS
LIFE 365 S.R.L., Via Alexander Fleming, 22 - 47122 Forlì, Italy
represented by Michele De Giorgi, representative before the UPC, Cantaluppi & Partners srl
and
LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A., Via Alexander Fleming, 22 - 47122 Forlì, Italy
represented by Michele De Giorgi, representative before the UPC, Cantaluppi & Partners srl
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “the LIFE 365 companies”)
Request to withdraw an application to intervene in the case APL_1991/2025 UPC_CoA_23/2025

APPELLANT (CLAIMANT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CC_7272/2024)
LAMA FRANCE, 241 Rue du Companet, 69140 Rillieux-la-Pape, France (hereinafter “LAMA”),
represented by Mr Henri Bourgeois, European Patent Attorney, Germain Maureau

RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P, 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA (hereinafter “HPDC”),
represented by Mr Grégoire Desrousseaux, Attorney-at-law at the Paris Bar, SCP August Debouzy

PATENTS AT ISSUE
EP 2 089 230
EP 1 737 669

COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL
Panel 1
Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal
Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur,
Peter Blok, legally qualified judge.

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
French

IMPUGNED DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
□ Decision on the merits of the Paris Local Division of 13 November 2024 in the main actions ACT_578697/2023 and CC_7272/2024
Reference:
UPC_CFI_358/2023
ACT_578697/2023
ORD_598511/2023

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On 11 February 2024, LAMA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patents at issue following the action for infringement of those patents, brought against it on 13 October 2023 by HPDC before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (hereinafter the “Local Division”).
2. By decision on the merits issued on 13 November 2024, the Local Division, inter alia, declared patent EP 2 089 230 invalid, rejected the revocation claim against patent EP 1 737 669 and found LAMA liable for acts that infringed EP 1 737 669 (hereinafter the “Decision on the merits”).
3. On 13 January 2025, LAMA appealed the decision on the merits (APL_1991/2025, UPC_CoA_24/2025), requesting that the Court of Appeal revoke patent EP 1 737 669 and uphold the decision of the Court of First Instance insofar as it revoked patent EP 2 089 230.
4. On 3 July 2025, LAMA applied to withdraw all its claims against HPDC and agreed to the withdrawal of HPDC's claims (App_32255/2025 UPC_CoA_23/2025).
5. By decision dated 24 July 2025, the Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal of all of HPDC’s and LAMA’s claims and declared the proceedings closed.
6. On 22 July 2025, the LIFE 365 companies filed an application to intervene in support of LAMA's claim for revocation of the patents at issue.
7. Informed of the above-mentioned decision handed down by the Court of Appeal on 24 July 2025, the LIFE 365 companies took note of the closure of the appeal proceedings and withdrew their application to intervene by means of a statement duly submitted on the CMS on 13 August 2025.
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION
8. Withdrawal of the application to intervene is granted for the following reasons.
9. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), as long as there is no final decision in an action, a claimant may apply to withdraw his action. The Court shall decide the application after hearing the other party. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court.
10. Rule 265 RoP concerns the withdrawal of an action relating to a case by the claimant, whereas Rule 313 RoP concerns an application to intervene filed by the “intervener”, who is formally distinct from the “claimant” within the meaning of Rule 265 RoP.
11. In the absence of specific provisions relating to the withdrawal of an application to intervene filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 313 RoP, Rule 265 RoP shall nevertheless apply by analogy to the withdrawal of an application to intervene.
12. In the present case, the application to intervene was filed after the application for withdrawal (App_32255/2025 UPC_CoA_23/2025) and two days before the Court of Appeal's decision declaring the proceedings closed, and as a result there is no need to hear an “other party” within the meaning of R. 265.1
RoP.
13. As the proceedings to which the application to intervene relates are closed (APL_1991/2025, UPC_CoA_24/2025) and the LIFE 365 companies have not made a request regarding costs, there is no need to issue a decision on costs under the provisions of Rule 265.2 (c) RoP.

ORDER
The Court of Appeal:
(i) permits the withdrawal of the application to intervene filed by the LIFE 365 companies and declares the proceedings relating to this application closed;
(ii) orders that this decision be entered in the register;
(iii) declares that there is no need to issue a decision on costs.

Issued in Luxembourg on 21 August 2025