Case Law
Rule 151: Start of proceedings for cost decision

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 cost recovery by the successful party in intervention proceedings: " The "successful party" within the meaning of Rule 151 must therefore be considered not only in relation to the main proceedings against INSULET and EOFLOW, but also in relation to the sub-proceedings aimed at assessing the legal conditions for MENARINI’s intervention. And there is no doubt that MENARINI was a "party" to it, since it filed a claim and initiated legal proceedings (for intervention) against INSULET, which, on the other hand, successfully tried to keep MENARINI out of the main proceedings. INSULET, as the successful party, must therefore be granted the right to claim legal costs, in accordance with the general principle that the successful party is entitled to recover from the unsuccessful party the costs incurred in the proceedings. [...] INSULET, as the successful party, must therefore be granted the right to claim legal costs, in accordance with the general principle that the successful party is entitled to recover from the unsuccessful party the costs incurred in the proceedings. This principle is also clearly expressed in Article 69 UPCA [...] so that it can apply to any litigation, including the one concerning intervention."

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 05/07/2024, 10x Genomics, Inc. (Case/ Registry number: App_38102/2024, ORD_38556/2024)
Example of decision on designation of the unsuccessful party in case of withdrawal of an appeal: "The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that in case of a withdrawal of an appeal, the appellant shall be considered to be the unsuccessful party who shall bear the costs (as referred to in R.151(d) RoP) incurred in relation to the appeal proceedings. Curio’s request (see par. 8 above) shall therefore be allowed."

Court of Appeal – Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 18/01/2024, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.;Meril GmbH / Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Case number UPC_CoA_4/2024, ORD_533/2024)
Example of decision on the exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect :
“In accordance with article 74(1) EPC, an appeal has no suspensive effect, unless the appeal court decides otherwise on a reasoned request from one of the parties. The Court of Appeal can therefore only grant the request if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that the appeal has no suspensive effect. It is necessary to examine whether, on the basis of these circumstances, the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo until its appeal has been decided exceptionally outweighs that of the respondent. The appellants argue that a costs procedure would entail additional costs for them. However, such an interest does not generally outweigh the interest of the successful party within the meaning of rule 151 of the Rules (in this case, the respondent) in obtaining an early decision on costs.”

Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division, Order dated 26/06/2023 (11/09/2023), OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v. AUTOSTORE AS (Case number UPC_CFI_57/2023, ORD_571090/2023)
Following the withdrawal of the action, a decision on legal costs is made only at the request of one of the parties: “According to rule 151 RoP, however, this type of order is issued only at the request of one of the parties, which in the present case is expressly excluded by the agreement of the parties. It follows that no decision on costs is required.”