Casalonga UPC rules of procedure
Powered by Casalonga

 Case Law
Rule 150: Separate proceedings for cost decision

Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division, Order dated 30/12/2024, Insulet Corporation v. EOFLOW (Case/ Registry number: App_58035/2024, ORD_60558/2024)
Example of decision on the fixation of legal costs: "The second issue relates the proceeding ruled by RoP 150 et seq. requiring an already existing decision on costs in principle as inferred from rule 156, lett. e) RoP: indeed, an application for a cost decision shall contain, inter alias, the preliminary estimate of the legal costs that the party submitted pursuant to rule 118.5. RoP.
The Judge rapporteur under rule 150 RoP et seq. only deals with the fixation of the amount of compensation for costs by not with the principle decision on the costs: as recalled by the doctrine, the cost decision is binding on the cost award decision.
Therefore, in proceedings for costs decision, it is not for the Judge rapporteur to decide what percentage of the costs should be shared between the parties or whether they should be set off."

Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division- Section, Order dated 23/12/2024, Insulet Corporation v. Menarini Diagnostics (Case/ Registry number: App_58027/2024, ORD_59988/2024)
Example of a decision on the applicability of cost rules beyond decisions on the merits: "MENARINI continues to maintain that legal costs can only follow a decision on the merits,
asserting that there is no article in the UPCA or rule in the Rules of Procedure that directly addresses the issue of costs in relation to interveners. R. 150 et seq. provide a set of rules which only apply once a "decision on the merits" has been made (cf. R. 150.1 sentence 1 RoP).
A decision on the merits is a decision in which the court decides on the right claimed by one of the parties without stopping at a preliminary issue.
And Rule 150.1 provides that "the decision on costs may be the subject of separate proceedings after a decision on the merits and, where appropriate, a decision on damages".
Again, the interpretation of Rule 150.1 RoP must be made in accordance with Art. 69 UPCA, which refers to a general principle that the losing party must bear the costs of the proceedings"

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 29/07/2024, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd (Case/ Registry number: App_36394/2024, ORD_38645/2024)
Example of decision on the determination of costs: "(9) The determination of costs is the subject of a special and separate procedure (Rules 150 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure), which also includes a special appeal procedure (Rules 157 and 221 of the Rules of Procedure). Like most other proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, the proceedings for the determination of costs also begin at the Court of First Instance. The application for the determination of costs must therefore be submitted to the court of first instance and will be decided by the judge-rapporteur of that court. 10. 10 This also applies if the application is filed after an order or decision of the court of appeal and thus relates exclusively or partially to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The Rules of Procedure do not provide for a special procedure for the determination of costs following an order or decision of the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the general procedure of R. 150 et seq. RoP is also applicable in this case. If the proceedings were to begin before the Court of Appeal instead, no appeal would be possible against the decision on costs, as provided for in R. 157 and 221 of the Rules of Procedure."

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 03/04/2024, Juul Labs, Inc. / NJOY Netherlands B.V. (Registry number: APL_588425/2023 ORD_598226/2023)
Example of decision on the rectification of the party’s name and order for costs: “If the claimant has not correctly named the defendant in the statement initiating the proceedings, the Court may allow the claimant to rectify the error. The request can be granted if the defendant is not unreasonably prejudiced by the incorrect statement of name and its rectification. As a rule, there will be no unreasonable prejudice if, despite the incorrect statement of name, it must have been clear to the defendant and to the Court, based on the circumstances of the case, that the claimant intended the statement for revocation to be directed against the defendant.
“24. The concept laid down in Rule 118.5 RoP that the principal decision on the costs of proceedings is made in the final order or decision is in line with Rule 150.1 RoP, according to which it is only after the decision on the merits that the successful party may seek a cost decision, meaning a decision for the determination of the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party (Rule 150.1 RoP). This concept is also confirmed by the fact that the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs adopted by the Administrative Committee, which the Court must take into account when determining the reimbursement of representation costs, indicates ceilings based on the value of the proceedings as a whole (Rule 152.2 RoP).”