2026-05-04 - LD Munich - Miele & Cie. v. Melitta Europa - UPC-CFI-0001148/2026

GERMAN: Wenn der Antrag auf Zulassung der Rücknahme eines Antrags auf Erlass einstweiliger Maßnahmen als Reaktion auf eine Anregung des Gerichts erfolgt, entspricht es in der Regel dem pflichtgemäßen Ermessen, von Regel 370.9 (e) Verfahrensordnung [Verweigerung der anteiligen Rückerstattung von bezahlten Gerichtsgebühren] keinen Gebrauch zu machen. ENGLISH: If an application to withdraw an application for provisional measures is filed in response to a suggestion by the court, the court's decision not to exercise the authority provided in Rule 370.9(e) of the Rules of Procedure — relating to the denial of a pro rata refund of court fees paid — is usually considered to be a reasonable use of the court's discretion.

After Miele filed a PI application against Melitta's SWIRL M60 vacuum-cleaner filter bags asserting EP 4 676 295 B1 (a Unitary Patent), Melitta's R. 209 RoP defence relied on prior art DE 34 03 121 A1. The Munich LD full panel signalled after preliminary deliberation that the legal validity of the asserted claims was 'shaken' and announced that it intended to decide without an oral hearing. Miele withdrew the application on the court's suggestion. The panel permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and held — by headnote — that where a withdrawal is filed in response to a court suggestion, it is generally a sound exercise of discretion not to invoke R. 370.9(e) RoP to deny the pro rata refund of court fees provided by R. 370.9(b) RoP. The court also rejected Melitta's argument that the absence of a pre-litigation warning letter justified denying the refund, noting that Miele had already addressed DE 34 03 121 A1 in its application (para. 80), so a warning letter would not have changed Miele's decision to file. Following Munich LD, Mann+Hummel v Sotras (UPC_CFI_614/2024, 1 April 2025), 50% of EUR 14,600 court fees (EUR 7,300) was ordered refunded.