Case Law
Rule 370: Court fees

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 25/02/2025, Panasonic Holdings Corporation (Case/ Registry number: App_516/2025, ORD_3236/2025)
Example of decision on proportional fee reimbursement commensurate with the court’s expended workload: "The purpose of the scale of fee refunds provided for in Rule 370.9 (b) UPC Rules of Procedure in the event of withdrawal of an action is to ensure that the refund is commensurate with the work already undertaken by the court: The later an action is withdrawn, the lower the reimbursement will be - in line with the amount of work already done by the court. This purpose is also the subject of Rule 370.9 (e) UPC Rules of Procedure. According to this rule, in exceptional cases, the court may refuse or reduce the reimbursement payable under letters (b) and (c), taking into account in particular the stage of the proceedings.
The decisive factor in the proceedings to be assessed here is that this is an extremely complex patent infringement dispute, which the parties also conducted very intensively until the withdrawal of the action and the counterclaims and which therefore caused an exceptionally high, far above-average workload on the part of the court. This is evidenced by the number of workflows in the overall complex (infringement action, counterclaims, applications for amendments, in particular numerous requests for submissions and confidentiality applications that required extensive processing) as can be seen from the CMS.
Therefore, the requested repayment of 60% instead of 0% had to be rejected in any case in accordance with Rule 370.9 (e) EPGVerfO . It is a in every respect "exceptional case" within the meaning of this provision."

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 23/12/2024, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation (Case/ Registry number: APL_67135/2024, ORD_67910/2024)
Example of decision on determination of the value of the action: "The impugned order does not adversely affect Microsoft and does not require further clarification of the scope and limits of the court’s powers. The determination of the value of the action will be the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur during the interim procedure, pursuant to R 22, 104 and 370.6 RoP, as already explained by the CFI (impugned order, paragraph 6). In doing so, the judgerapporteur shall take into account the value as assessed by the parties, pursuant to R 22 RoP, and his assessment of the value shall reflect “the objective interest pursued by the filing party at the time of filing the action” (R 370.6 RoP)."

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 24/10/2024, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED (Case/ Registry number: App_52964/2024, ORD_53290/2024)
Example of decision on the rembursement of the fee: "It results from these provisions that the Court may, upon prior reasoned request, decide on the reimbursement of the court fees incurred in total or partly. Even if it is foreseen by R. 370.11 RoP that an application may also be filed at a later stage, it remains in the present case that the Court of First Instance cannot review its previous order on the same subject-matter and decide in a dif ferent way, considering – should it be a case management order – that the decision was taken by a single judge (without possible panel review) and the Order can be appealed."

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 03/07/2024, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (Case/ Registry number: App_39459/2024, ORD_39595/2024)
Example of decision on partial reimbursement of Court fees after a settlement between parties in relation to an application for provisional measures: "If the parties have terminated the proceedings by settlement, the party liable to pay the court fees shall, upon reasoned Application, be reimbursed the court fees (R. 370. 9 (c) (iii) RoP in conjunction with R. 370.11 RoP). Such reimbursement is not precluded by the fact that the present proceedings concern an Application for provisional measures. Although the wording of the English version of Rule 370.9 (c) RoP speaks of an “action”, the German version is more sophisticated (“Verfahren”). The same applies to the French version (“affaire”). In addition, the possibility of partial reimbursement of court fees is intended to motivate the parties to end the proceedings as early as possible by concluding a settlement. This intention is present not only in proceedings on the merits but also in an Application for provisional measures."