Düsseldorf Local Division
UPC_CFI_99/2024
UPC_CFI_392/2024

Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 11 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 Ben-
edikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augen-
stein 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, Attorney-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 order 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. 370.9 RoP – Reimbursement of Court fees
R. 352.2 RoP – Release of security for costs of a party

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).
By order of 27 December 2024, the Court ordered the Claimant to provide security for legal costs
and other expenses to the Defendants in the amount of € 500,000, either by way of deposit on the
UPC account dedicated for security deposits, alternatively by way of bank guarantee issued by a
bank licenced in the European Union to be chosen by the Claimant within six weeks from the date
of service of this order (App_41576/2024).
Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew its infringement action by
brief dated 1 September 2025. On 3 September 2025, the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal of
the infringement action.

By decision of 5 September 2025, the Court allowed this withdrawal.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:
According to R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP, fixed and value-based fees may be reimbursed by 60 % if an action
is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure. R. 370.11 RoP states that the Court shall
deal with applications for a reimbursement of Court fees without delay, provided it is satisfied that
the reimbursement is appropriate.
Based on these principles, a reimbursement of 40 % is appropriate in the present case. Although
the written proceedings had not yet been formally closed, all regular pleadings foreseen in the
Rules of Procedure had already been exchanged between the parties. Based on this, the judge-
rapporteur raised a lot of questions and requested further documentation on 1 August 2025. This
order required an in-depth examination of the matter and is comparable to an R. 103 RoP order.
In light of this, it is reasonable to reimburse only 40 % of the court fees, as set out in R. 370.9(b)(ii)
RoP for withdrawal in the interim procedure.
Both parties confirmed that they had agreed to cover their own costs. The Defendants also agreed
to the release of the security. On this basis, the security provided by the Claimant is to be released,
as it is now without purpose (R. 352.2 RoP).

ORDER:
1. The Registrar is directed to reimburse the Claimant 40 % of the court fees paid in relation to the infringement action as soon as possible, which amounts to € 20,000.
2. The security provided by the Claimant is released by this order.

DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
App_35855/2025 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 11 September 2025