Case Law
Rule 152: Compensation for representation costs

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 19/03/2025, EJP Maschinen GmbH v. MSG Maschinenbau GmbH (Case/ Registry number: ACT_61090/2024, ORD_69088/2024)
Example of decision on recoverable costs of representation in combined infringement and counterclaim proceedings: "18. Pursuant to Article 69(1) UPCA, the costs of the legal proceedings and other costs incurred by the prevailing party shall, as a rule, be borne by the losing party to the extent that they are reasonable and appropriate, up to the maximum amount specified in the Rules of Procedure, unless equity and fairness dictate otherwise. In concrete terms, this principle means that the prevailing party is entitled, pursuant to Rule 152(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, to recover the reasonable and proportionate costs of representation up to the maximum amount set by the Administrative Committee.
[...] 20. The costs in question must be cumulatively reasonable and appropriate, which is always a question to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
[...] 27. The costs charged for the activities mentioned are also reasonable. In particular, the hourly rate charged and the plausibly demonstrated time required for the individual activities, as well as the total number of hours charged, appear proportionate in view of the value in dispute, the significance of the matter, the degree of difficulty and the complexity of the proceedings.
[...] 34. The costs for preparing the application for a determination of costs in the amount of €285.00 are to be reimbursed. In this respect, too, these are reasonable and appropriate costs for the appropriate legal defence."

Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division, Order dated 17/02/2025, Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB v. Imbox Protection A/S (Case/ Registry number: ACT_51647/2024, ORD_68981/2024)
Example of decision on how the ceiling for recoverable costs still applies when multiple defendants are involved: "Since the Applicant has withdrawn its application, after being convinced that the Defendants does not infringe EP 862, the Applicant is the unsuccessful party in this proceeding and shall be ordered to reimburse the Defendants’ reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses, up to the ceiling set by the Administrative Committee (Article 69 UPCA and Rule 152.2 RoP).
[...] Since the value of the proceeding is set in relation to the whole proceeding (not in relation to each defendant) and the decision by the Administrative Committee clearly states the ceilings shall apply “regardless of the number of parties”, the Court concludes that this legal framework must be understood to mean that when an application against several defendants is dismissed, the ceiling serves as a joint ceiling for all defendants’ representation costs. The potential challenges mentioned by the Defendants can – if necessary – be taken into account when deciding whether an application to raise the ceiling shall be granted."

Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division, Order dated 17/09/2024, *** v. OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV (Case/ Registry number: ACT_581538/2023, ORD_598476/2023)
Example of decision on the impact of the representation cost on the assessment of the value of the case: "Whether or not a valuation is "sufficient" in the light of the possible recoverable costs (in application of R. 152.3. RoP) does not concern any factor to be taken into consideration in assessing the valuation of the case."