Case Law
Article 69: Legal costs
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on how the ceiling for recoverable costs still applies when multiple defendants are involved: "Since the Applicant has withdrawn its application, after being convinced that the Defendants does not infringe EP 862, the Applicant is the unsuccessful party in this proceeding and shall be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 - Milan (IT) Central Division- Section, Order dated 15/02/2025, Insulet Corporation (Case/ Registry number: App_5366/2025, ORD_62486/2024)
Example of decision on the costs of an interlocutory injunction must be settled with the final decision, without splitting them up according to the stages of the proceedings: "The "general rule" stated in Art. 69 UPCA is, nonetheless, that in any proceedings or subproceedings which result in a final decision, the unsuccessful party shall always reimburse the successful party for the costs of the proceedings (“Reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the 3 unsuccessful party, unless equity requires otherwise, up to a ceiling set in accordance with the Rules of Procedure”).
Art. 69 UPCA does not limit cost compensation only to decisions on the merits. In fact, it might well happen that, once a PI is issued by the Court (for example injunctions issued in favour of the applicant during trade fairs), the applicant has no interest in following the PI with a decision on the merits.
In that case, PIs cease to have effect pursuant to Rule 213 RoP, but, nevertheless, justice was done for the applicant in its specific case, and it seems appropriate and proportionate that, even in that case, the applicant be awarded compensation for costs. This issue has already been addressed by this Milan Central Division in the Application - Order 59988/24 UPC_CFI 380/24 (issued on 23 Decembre 2024).
In that case, this Court affirmed the principle that a fair interpretation of Rule 151 RoP cannot lead to the exclusion, from the costs, of all proceedings which do not result in a decision on the merits. Rule 151 has a more limited scope than Article 69 UPCA, and in the event of a conflict between a procedural rule and a UPCA rule, the UPCA rule must prevail. The case referred to the outcome of a case of application in intervention pursuant to Rule 213 RoP where defendant, once its request to intervene was rejected, objected it was not a decision ‘on the merits’."
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 02/10/2024, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CoA_2/2024, ORD_42972/2024)
Example of decision on the determination of the successful party: "Which party is the successful party within the meaning of Art. 69(1) UPCA in the context of a disposal of an action following a cease-and-desist undertaking by the defendant must be determined on the basis of the specific characteristics of the case and in particular the requests of the parties and the content of the undertaking. If, after the commencement of the proceedings, the defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant’s requests, it is generally not necessary to examine the admissibility and the merits of the case at the point of time of the undertaking in order to determine which party is the successful party. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant’s requests have been fulfilled. This means that, as a general rule, the claimant must be considered the successful party."
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 23/04/2024, AUDI AG (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI No.514/2023, ORD_12232/2024)
Example of decision on the request for security for legal costs by defendant: “The fact that the Plaintiff has its registered office in a non-EU country, i.e. in the United States, cannot be relevant, as this would be a form of a priori discrimination, based precisely on the nationality of its registered office/domicile, which is not provided for in any source of law.
No precise evidence has been provided as to the difficulty of enforcing UPC decisions on US territory. As this Local Division has already made clear in a previous decision, this Court only commenced its activities on 1.6.2023, so there is naturally no experience with the recognition and enforcement of the Court’s decisions abroad. In the United States of America, judgments of foreign courts and associated cost decisions can generally be recognized and enforced. It has not been submitted or is otherwise apparent that this could be different with decisions and orders of this court or is seriously to be expected. At the same time, the prerequisite for a successful application would be a demonstration that the financial circumstances of the other party give rise to fears that any claim for reimbursement of costs cannot be satisfied or that, despite sufficient financial resources, enforcement of a decision on costs appears to be impossible or fraught with particular difficulties.”
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division, Order dated 18/03/2024, Astellas / Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University (Case number UPC_CFI_75/2023 ORD_598255/2023)
Example of decision on the evaluation of the costs incurred by the successful party: “In order for the parties and the Court to assess whether costs incurred are indeed reasonable and proportionate and whether or not equity requires otherwise, the Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate. The same applies to any expenses incurred.”
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section, Order dated 30/10/2023, President and Fellows of Harvard College v. NanoString Technologies Europe Limited (Case number UPC_CFI_252/2023, ORD_574057/2023)
Example of decision concerning a guarantee claim: “In exercising its discretion under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP, the Court must therefore weigh the relevant facts and circumstances.
Against this background, it is for the party requesting a security order to bring forward facts and arguments why such an order is appropriate in a specific case. Accordingly, the requesting party has to make a “reasoned request”, whereby the burden of proof of facts generally is on the party relying on those facts (Article 54 UPCA). On the other hand, once facts and reasons in support of a security request have been brought forward in a credible way, it is up to the responding party to contest such facts and 7 reasons in a substantiated way, especially since that party will normally have knowledge of and will be in the possession of evidence in relation to its financial position and (the location of) its assets. Likewise, it is up to the respondent to argue that and why a security order would unduly interfere with its right to an effective remedy.”