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
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V.vsArkyne Technologies S.L.
This document is uploaded for technical (CMS ) reasons only, in order to close the workflow. Margot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2024.12.13 17:26:00 +01'00'
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsBelkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
This decision concerns the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. before the Court of Appeal. Philips had filed the application by mistake, as cost assessment applications fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal under Rule 265(1) of the Rules of Procedure without requiring a hearing of Belkin, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered no separate cost decision.
guines, 95800 Cergy, FrankreichvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a confidentiality request filed by Valeo Electrification in interim injunction proceedings against SEG Automotive Germany GmbH regarding European Patent 3 645 903. The applicant sought to restrict access to certain unredacted documents and information to a limited 'Confidentiality Club' of legal representatives and specific individuals. After the parties agreed on a circle of four persons to be included in the confidentiality club, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ruled that the request under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure was admissible and substantively successful, while addressing the respondent's objections regarding the differentiation between public and party-specific confidentiality.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and APPLE Inc. (intervener)
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The Court addressed the proportionality of measures protecting confidential information, balancing the right to an effective remedy and fair trial against the interests of parties and third parties. Key issues included whether employees of a party should be granted access to confidential information, the treatment of licence agreement information, and the liability framework for breaches of confidentiality obligations.
1. Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case latervsSWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a revocation action against European Patent 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), maintaining the patent in its Art. 105a EPC-limited form. The plaintiff and intervener Chainzone Technology had sought full revocation for lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, unallowable extension, and insufficient disclosure. The court held that the subject-matter of claim 1 in both the granted and limited forms was patentable over all cited p
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.