UPC_CFI: 240/2023
ACT. 549550/23
ACT. 596263/2023
App. _33377/2025
App. _33416/2025

Divisione Locale di Milano

DECISIONE
del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti
Tribunale di primo grado
relativa al brevetto EP EP2145848
Attore in contraffazione e convenuto in nullità
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG
Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid – DE
Rappresentato dagli avvtiStefania BERGIA Giulio E. SIRONI
Convenuto in contraffazione ed attore in nullità
Himson Engineering Private Limited Rappresentato dall’avv.to Fabrizio Jacobacci

Brevetto In Discussione
BREVETTO N. TITOLARE
EP2145848 Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG

COMPOSIZIONE DEL COLLEGIO
Presidente Pierluigi Perrotti
Giudice estensore Alima Zana
Giudice a latere Carine Gillet
Giudice tecnico Michel Abello

LINGUA DEL PROCEDIMENTO
Italiano

Le vicende processuali
1.Il presente giudizio fa seguito ad un ricorso ante causam introdotto da Oerlikon Textile GmbH (di seguito solo Oerlikon) in data 13 giugno 2013 ai fini della conservazione delle prove ai sensi dell’art. 60 UPCA e della ROP 192 e segg. nei confronti di Himson Engineering Private Limited (di seguito solo Himson) a tutela del brevetto Europeo EP2145848B1 (di seguito EP ‘848).
2. il Tribunale, nella persona del singolo giudice delegato dal Presidente in ragione dell’estrema urgenza, in data 13.6.2023 ha concesso la misura ex parte.
3. Il provvedimento è stato eseguito il successivo 14.6.2023 presso la Fiera ITMA tenutasi a Rho (MI) con l’ausilio del Court Expert nominato dal Tribunale e non è stato oggetto di domanda di revisione o di appello.
4.Le prove raccolte sono state poi acquisite nel corso del giudizio a seguito dell’ordine adottato dal giudice relatore in data 6.4.2024 (ord. 13943/2024).
5. Il successivo 12 luglio 2023 Oerlikon ha quindi introdotto il giudizio di merito secondo la ROP 198, para. 1, chiedendo l’accertamento della contraffazione del brevetto EP ‘848 da parte delle macchine di Himson identificate con i codici HSS-AXA-11G, HSS-AX-11G-TS, HSS-Ax4-N, HSS-AX-11G-AT, oltre alle misure accessorie dell’inibitoria assistita da penale, la pubblicazione e la condanna al pagamento di una somma quantificata in € 100.000,00 in previsione delle spese da sostenere per il giudizio di danni. L’attore ha chiesto, altresì, in via istruttoria, di ordinare ad Himson di rendere informazioni relativi ai canali di distribuzione, ai quantitativi dei prodotti commercializzati ed all’identità delle persone coinvolte.
6. In data 20 dicembre 2023, Himson ha depositato la propria comparsa di costituzione e la domanda riconvenzionale di revoca del brevetto. Con il primo atto difensivo ha invocato il rigetto delle domande attoree per invalidità del titolo brevettuale e per non interferenza; con il secondo la convenuta ha chiesto di accertare e dichiarare la nullità del claim n. 1 di EP ‘848. E ciò per materia aggiunta ex art. 123 EPC- essendo stata introdotta davanti all’EPO una modifica costituente una generalizzazione intermedia; per carenza di novità alla
luce dell’anteriorità DE ‘042; infine, per carenza di attività inventiva a fronte della combinazione delle seguenti anteriorità: GB ‘433 e JP ‘573; GB 433 con qualsiasi tra US ‘964, WO ‘242, WO ‘793 ed EP ‘431; US ‘964, WO ‘242, WO ‘793 con DE ‘342; US ‘964, WO ‘242, WO ‘793 con GB ‘433; US ‘964, W0 ‘242, WO ‘793 con la common general knowledge.
7. La fase della procedura scritta si è articolata anche nella richiesta di Oerlikon, in via subordinata alla declaratoria di nullità, di modifica del brevetto azionato mediante la formulazione di otto domande ausiliarie.
8.Terminata la fase orale, Il giudice relatore ha celebrato l’Interim Conference in data 6 dicembre 2024.
9.L’Oral Hearing è stata celebrata davanti al Collegio in data 11 giugno 2025.
10. in data 22 luglio 2025, entrambe le parti hanno depositato un atto di rinuncia all’azione e la contestuale accettazione della rinuncia avversaria ai sensi dell’articolo 265 RoP, a spese integralmente compensate.
In particolare,
Oerlikon ha chiesto che:
“il Tribunale voglia concedere la rinuncia alle rispettive domande delle parti nell’odierno giudizio e, per l’effetto, voglia:
(i) emettere una decisione che dichiari chiuso il presente giudizio n. UPC_CFI_240/2023;
(ii) ordinare di iscrivere la predetta decisione nel registro;
(iii) dichiarare la compensazione integrale delle spese legali tra le parti”.
Himson ha chiesto che:
“Il Tribunale, ai sensi della Rule 265 RoP, voglia concedere la rinuncia alle rispettive domande svolte dalle parti nel presente giudizio e, per l’effetto, voglia dichiarare l’estinzione dello stesso a spese integralmente compensate tra le parti”.
motivi della decisione
considerazioni generali
11. La presente decisione viene adottata in base:
✓ all’articolo 265.1 RoP, il quale stabilisce che:
1. 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.
2. If withdrawal is permitted, the Court shall:
a. give a decision declaring the proceedings closed;
b. order the decision to be entered on the register; and
c. issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5
✓ all’articolo 11, para. 2, ROP, il quale stabilisce che:
“Pursuant to Rule 365 the Court shall, if requested by the parties, by decision confirm
the terms of any settlement or arbitral award by consent (irrespective of whether it was
reached using the facilities of the Centre or otherwise), including a term which obliges
the patent owner to limit, surrender or agree to the revocation of a patent or not to
assert it against the other party and/or third parties. /..)” The parties may agree on costs
to be awarded or may request the Court to decide on costs to be awarded in accordance
with Rules 150 to 156 mutatis mutandis”
Il caso in esame
12. Nel caso in esame le parti, ponendo fine alla lite, hanno raggiunto un accordo transattivo e chiedono quindi l’estinzione dell’intero giudizio.
13. Il Tribunale osserva che, seppure sia già stata celebrata la Oral Hearing, la domanda è ammissibile.
Sul punto va richiamato l’indirizzo confermato anche in sede d’Appello, secondo il quale “As long as no final
decision has been made on an action, the plaintiff may request the withdrawal of his action in accordance with
R.265.1 of the Rules of Procedure (Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 15/01/2025, Avago
Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Case/ Registry number: App_68614/2024, ORD_68790/2024)
La Corte non ha obiezioni a dichiarare pertanto l’estinzione di entrambi i procedimenti, sia di quello di contraffazione sia di quello di revoca del brevetto.
Quanto ai costi
14.Quanto ai costi della lite, va rammentato che:
-l’articolo 365, para 4, RoP stabilisce che “ The judge-rapporteur shall give a decision as
to costs in accordance with the terms of the settlement or, failing that, at his discretion”.
-l’articolo 11.para 2, RoP dispone che: “The parties may agree on costs to be awarded
or may request the Court to decide on costs to be awarded in accordance with Rules 150
to 156 mutatis mutandis”
15.Nel caso in esame, le parti hanno concordato di compensare tra loro spese e non hanno richiesto alcuna decisione in merito.
Il Tribunale ritiene che non vi siano ostacoli alla dichiarazione di compensazione integrale delle spese tra le parti.
Quanto alle Court Fees
16. Il Tribunale osserva che le parti non hanno presentato domanda di rimborso delle Court Fees ai sensi della regola 370.9. ROP.
Del resto, nel caso, in esame, gli atti di rinuncia sono stati depositati solo dopo la celebrazione della Oral Hearing.
Le Court Fees non vanno dunque rimborsate.
Alla luce delle considerazioni sopra esposte, il Tribunale adotta quindi la seguente

DECISIONE
1. ammette la rinuncia della domanda di contraffazione -registrata al n. 549550/2023-formulata da Oerlikon e la rinuncia della domanda riconvenzionale di nullità del brevetto -registrata al n. 596363/2023- formulata da Himson;
2. dichiara chiusi i procedimenti n. 549550/2023 n. 596363/2023- nonché tutti i sub-procedimenti registrati nel caso UPC CFI 240/2023;
3. dichiara le spese di entrambi i procedimenti indicati al punto n. 1 integralmente compensate tra le parti:
4. dispone che le Court Fees non siano rimborsate alle parti;
5. dispone che questa decisione sia registrata nel registro a cura della Cancelleria

Cosi deciso in Milano in data 9 settembre 2025


Machine Translation

UPC_CFI: 240/2023
ACT. 549550/23
ACT. 596263/2023
App. _33377/2025
App. _33416/2025

Milan Local Division

DECISION
of the Unified Patent Court Court of First
Instance
relating to patent EP EP2145848
Plaintiff in infringement and defendant in invalidity
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO
KG
Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid – DE
Represented by
Stefania BERGIA
Giulio and E. SIRONI
Defendant in infringement proceedings and plaintiff in nullity proceedings
Himson Engineering Private Limited Represented by solicitor Fabrizio
Jacobacci
Patent Under Discussion

PATENT NO. HOLDER
EP2145848 Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG

COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
Chairman Pierluigi Perrotti
Presiding Judge Alima Zana
Associate Judge Carine Gillet
Technical judge Michel Abello

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Italian
The proceedings
1.This judgment follows an ante causam appeal lodged by Oerlikon Textile GmbH (hereinafter referred to as
Oerlikon) on 13 June 2013 for the preservation of evidence pursuant to Article 60 UPCA and ROP 192 et
seq. against Himson Engineering Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Himson) to protect European
patent EP2145848B1 (hereinafter referred to as EP '848).
2. On 13 June 2023, the Court, in the person of the single judge delegated by the President due to the
extreme urgency of the matter, granted the ex parte measure.
3. The measure was enforced on 14 June 2023 at the ITMA trade fair held in Rho (MI) with the assistance of
the Court Expert appointed by the Court and was not subject to any request for review or appeal.
4.The evidence gathered was then acquired during the proceedings following the order adopted by the
reporting judge on 6 April 2024 (order 13943/2024).
5. On 12 July 2023, Oerlikon then introduced the judgment on the merits pursuant to ROP 198, para. 1,
requesting the assessment of the infringement of EP patent '848 by Himson machines identified with the
codes HSS-AXA-11G, HSS-AX-11G-TS, €HSS-Ax4-N, HSS-AX-11G-AT, as well as ancillary measures of
injunction with penalty, publication and payment of a sum quantified at £100,000.00 in anticipation of the
costs to be incurred for the damages trial. The plaintiff also requested, as a preliminary measure, that Himson
be ordered to provide information on its distribution channels, the quantities of products marketed and the
identity of the persons involved.
6. On 20 December 2023, Himson filed its statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation of the
patent. In its first defence, it requested that the plaintiff's claims be rejected on the grounds of invalidity of
the patent title and non-interference; in its second defence, the defendant requested that claim no. 1 of EP
'848 be declared invalid. This was due to additional subject matter pursuant to Article 123 EPC, as a
modification constituting an intermediate generalisation had been introduced before the EPO; due to lack of novelty at prior art DE '042; finally, due to lack of inventive step in view of the combination of the following prior art: GB
'433 and JP '573; GB 433 with any of US '964, WO '242, WO '793 and EP '431; US '964,
WO '242, WO '793 with DE '342; US '964, WO '242, WO '793 with GB '433; US '964, W0 '242, WO '793
with common general knowledge.
7. The written proceedings also included Oerlikon's request, subject to the declaration of invalidity, to amend
the patent by formulating eight auxiliary questions.
8.Once the oral phase was completed, the reporting judge held the Interim Conference on 6 December 2024.
9.The Oral Hearing was held before the Board on 11 June 2025.
10. On 22 July 2025, both parties filed a notice of withdrawal of the action and simultaneous acceptance of
the opponent's withdrawal pursuant to Article 265 RoP, with costs fully compensated.
In particular,
Oerlikon requested that:
"the Court grant the waiver of the respective claims of the parties in the present
proceedings and, as a result,
(i) emit a decision that declaring closed the present judgment
No. UPC_CFI_240/2023;
(ii) order the entry of the aforementioned decision in the register;
(iii) declare the full compensation of legal costs between the parties.
Himson requested that:
"The Court, pursuant to Rule 265 RoP, grant the waiver of the respective claims made
by the parties in this case and, as a result, declare the case closed with full
compensation of costs between the parties".
Reasons for the decision
general considerations
11. This decision is adopted on the basis of:
✓ Article 265.1 RoP, which states that:
1. 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.
2. If withdrawal is permitted, the Court shall:
a. give a decision declaring the proceedings closed;
b. order the decision to be entered in the register; and
c. issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5
✓ Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Procedure, which states that:
“Pursuant to Rule 365, the Court shall, if requested by the parties, confirm by
decision the terms of any settlement or arbitral award by consent (irrespective of
whether it was reached using the facilities of the Centre or otherwise), including a
term which obliges the patent owner to limit, surrender or agree to the revocation of a
patent or not to assert it against the other party and/or third parties. /..)” The parties
may agree on costs to be awarded or may request the Court to decide on costs to be
awarded in accordance with Rules 150 to 156 mutatis mutandis.”
The case in question
12. In the case in question, the parties, putting an end to the dispute, have reached a settlement agreement and
are therefore requesting the termination of the entire proceedings.
13. The Court notes that, although the oral hearing has already been held, the request is admissible.
On this point, reference should be made to the position confirmed also on appeal, according to which 'As long
as no final decision has been made on an action, the plaintiff may request the withdrawal of his action in
accordance with
R.265.1 of the Rules of Procedure (Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 15/01/2025, Avago
Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Case/ Registry number: App_68614/2024, ORD_68790/2024)
The Court therefore has no objection to declaring both proceedings, both the infringement proceedings and the patent
revocation proceedings, to be closed.
As regards costs
14. With regard to the costs of the litigation, it should be noted that:
-Article 365, para. 4, RoP states that "The judge-rapporteur shall give a decision as to
costs in accordance with the terms of the settlement or, failing that, at his discretion."
-Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Practice provides that: "The parties may
agree on costs to be awarded or may request the Court to decide on costs to be awarded
in accordance with Rules 150 to 156 mutatis mutandis".
15. In the present case, the parties agreed to compensate each other for costs and did not request any decision
on the matter.
The Court considers that there are no obstacles to declaring full compensation of costs between the parties.
As regards Court Fees
16. The Tribunal notes that the parties did not submit a request for reimbursement of court fees pursuant
to Rule 370.9. ROP.
Moreover, in the present case, the waivers were filed only after the oral hearing had been held.
The court fees are therefore not refundable.
In light of the above considerations, the Court hereby adopts the following

DECISION
1. accepts the withdrawal of the infringement claim - registered under No. 549550/2023 - filed
by Oerlikon and the withdrawal of the counterclaim for patent invalidity - registered under No.
596363/2023 - filed by Himson;
2. declares proceedings no. 549550/2023 and no. 596363/2023 closed, as well as all sub-proceedings
registered in case UPC CFI 240/2023;
3. declares the costs of both proceedings referred to in point no. 1 to be fully compensated
between the parties;
4. orders that the Court Fees shall not be reimbursed to the parties;
5. orders that this decision be recorded in the register kept by the Registry
So decided in Milan on 9 September 2025