2026-01-08 - LD Munich - Disney et al. v. Disney et al. - UPC_CFI_206/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_206/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited v. Adeia Guides Inc.
Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action and of the counterclaim for revocation after the parties settled, and used the occasion to fix the point in time that governs the court-fee reimbursement under Rule 370.
2026-01-08 - LD Munich - Disney et al.
v.
Disney et al. - UPC_CFI_206/2025
notable
The Munich Local Division permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action and of the counterclaim for revocation after the parties settled, and used the occasion to fix the point in time that governs the court-fee reimbursement under Rule 370.9(b) RoP. The rate depends on the phase of the proceedings at the time of the withdrawal, and the panel held that the operative moment is the Court's permission rather than the filing of the application: under Rule 265 RoP a withdrawal does not take effect on filing, because the party only applies to withdraw and the withdrawal takes effect when the Court permits it after hearing the other side. The panel acknowledged that Rule 370.9(b) RoP may have been drafted sloppily on this point and took it literally, so permission granted on 7 January 2026 fell in the oral phase and only 20% was reimbursed, the defendants' request for 40% being dismissed. On when the oral phase begins, the Division held that the judge-rapporteur's information to the presiding judge and the parties under Rule 110.1 RoP is subject to no formal requirements, so it may be given impliedly, and an order under Rule 105.5 RoP made after the interim conference can serve as that implied information, confirmed here by the recorded CMS activity. Leave to appeal was refused because the reimbursement rules have since been amended, so any clarification by the Court of Appeal would have solely historical significance.