Short Summary
The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking cost assessment for attorney fees incurred during an appeal proceeding brought by the plaintiffs against an order requiring security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Chamber Mannheim held the application inadmissible, ruling that costs arising from the application, opposition, or defense of procedural orders, including security-for-costs orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under Rule 150 RoP but must instead be assessed as part of the overall procedural costs in the cost assessment following the substantive decision.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in case UPC_CFI_471/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs are DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., both based in Englewood, Colorado, USA. The defendants are six entities associated with the AYLO group and related companies: AYLO Premium Ltd (Cyprus), AYLO Billing Limited (Ireland), AYLO Freesites Ltd (Cyprus), AYLO Billing US Corp. (USA), Brockwell Group LLC (USA), and Bridgemaze Group LLC (USA). The matter concerns an infringement action and a cost assessment dispute.
During the ongoing infringement proceedings, the defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 RoP seeking cost assessment for quantified attorney representation costs they allegedly incurred in an appeal proceeding brought by the plaintiffs against an order requiring security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) under Rule 158 RoP. In the appeal proceeding, the Court of Appeal had permitted the plaintiffs' withdrawal of the appeal with the defendants' consent and had imposed the costs of the appeal on the plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 265.2 RoP. The plaintiffs opposed the cost assessment application. The central dispute between the parties was whether the attorney costs claimed for the appeal response were justified, given that the plaintiffs declared withdrawal of the appeal on 11 November 2024 and the defendants consented on 15 November 2024. The deadline for the appeal response expired on 19 November 2024. The defendants, who filed their appeal response on the day the deadline expired, claimed they only learned through the CMS system on 20 November 2024 about the Court of Appeal's acceptance of the appeal withdrawal, which had occurred on 19 November 2024.
& Analysis: The court determined that the application was inadmissible. The court's guiding principle (Leitsatz) established that costs incurred for the application, opposition, or defense of procedural orders—including orders concerning security for costs under Rule 158 RoP—are not subject to a separate cost assessment procedure under Rule 150 RoP. Rather, such costs, if applicable, are to be assessed as part of the total procedural costs in the cost assessment proceeding under Rule 150 RoP that follows the substantive decision. Additionally, the court noted that even if the application were admissible, it would have become moot (gegenstandslos) due to the cost-related decision rendered by the panel in its decision of 6 June 2025 regarding the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.
Final Order & Ruling: The order was issued by the legally qualified judge Böttger as the rapporteur on 6 August 2025. The court declared the defendants' application for cost assessment inadmissible, holding that costs arising from procedural orders such as security-for-costs orders must be addressed in the comprehensive cost assessment following the substantive decision rather than through a separate cost assessment proceeding.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO BILLING US CORP., AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited vs Respondent 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.