Short Summary
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed the court fees payable for AIM's appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division disposing of a provisional measures application. The Court held that the appeal fee of EUR 20,400 paid by AIM was both necessary and sufficient, classifying the appeal as one under R. 220.1(a) RoP pursuant to R. 363.2 RoP. AIM was also invited to clarify why Respondent 6 (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) was included in the appeal proceedings concerning the PI case.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns the determination of court fees for an appeal lodged by AIM Sport Development AG against an order of the Helsinki Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. AIM had originally filed an infringement action (UPC-CFI-214/2023) together with an application for provisional measures (ACT_551054/2023) against multiple TGI entities. The Helsinki Local Division initially upheld TGI's preliminary objection and dismissed both the infringement action and the PI application for lack of competence and jurisdiction. On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal set aside those orders and referred the matter back to the Helsinki Local Division. The PI proceedings were subsequently discontinued, and the Helsinki Local Division deferred any decision on costs pending the outcome of the infringement action.
On 29 April 2026, the Helsinki Local Division dismissed the infringement action and, in the impugned order, disposed of the PI application. The Court set the value of the preliminary injunction proceedings at EUR 9.9 million and ordered that the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by TGI before the Court of First Instance, up to a ceiling of EUR 800,000, be borne by AIM. On 29 June 2026, AIM filed an appeal against both the impugned order and the decision dismissing the infringement action.
AIM argued that none of the appeal fees provided in Tables IV and V of the UPC Table of Court Fees were applicable because the appeal was brought under R. 220.1(a) RoP and concerned only the allocation of costs in preliminary injunction proceedings that had become devoid of purpose. According to AIM, the appeal was not an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP relating to an application for provisional measures, and therefore no appeal fee should be payable. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, AIM paid the fee applicable to an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP, totaling EUR 20,400, consisting of a fixed fee of EUR 14,600 and a value-based fee of EUR 5,800 calculated based on the maximum recoverable costs of EUR 800,000.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that R. 360 RoP applies to applications for provisional measures, and consequently R. 363.2 RoP applies to this case. Under R. 363.2 RoP, where the decision is taken by the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 360, 361 and 362 RoP, it constitutes a final decision within the meaning of R. 220.1(a) RoP. The Court therefore concluded that the appeal is an appeal according to R. 220.1(a) RoP, and according to Table IV of the Table of Court Fees, AIM must pay a fixed fee of EUR 14,600 as well as a value-based fee according to Table V, based on the maximum recoverable costs of EUR 800,000. The Court held that the appeal fee paid by AIM was both necessary and sufficient.
Additionally, the Court noted that the impugned order did not mention Respondent 6 (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) as a defendant, which contradicted the Statement of appeal. AIM was invited to clarify why Respondent 6 should be involved in the appeal proceedings with regard to the PI case, with comments to be submitted no later than 13 July 2026. The Court also clarified that the Registry's validation of formal requirements does not constitute a final determination of compliance with all procedural formalities, and the Court retains the right to raise questions or request further information at any subsequent stage.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Helsinki Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in AIM Sport Development AG vs TGI Sport France SASU and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.