bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch d v. Respondent

The proceedings concern European Patent EP 3685783 and involve bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. as the applicant, represented by biolitec Holding GmbH and its managing director Dr. Wolfgang Neuberger, based in Vienna, Austria. The respondents are Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, based in Meckenheim, Germany, and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, based in Latvia. The case was handled by Spruchkörper 2 of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, with Presiding Judge Dr. Thom acting as the reporting judge. The proceedings were conducted in German.

The dispute arose from a prior ex-parte application for provisional measures (UPC_CFI_486/2024) filed by bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. against the respondents. By order dated September 6, 2024, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected that application and imposed the costs on the applicant. The applicant's appeal against this order was unsuccessful, as the Court of Appeal dismissed it by order dated February 24, 2025 (UPC_CoA_540/2024) and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The respondents subsequently sought reimbursement of their costs from the appeal proceedings. Meanwhile, on November 20, 2024, the applicant had filed the main infringement action before the Local Chamber Munich (UPC_CFI_714/2024, CFI_155/2025), which remained pending. The value of the dispute for the provisional measures proceedings was uncontested between the parties at EUR 1,000,000.00, though no final judicial determination had yet been made.

& Analysis

The court found the cost application admissible, noting it was filed within the prescribed time limit and that no parallel cost proceedings appeared to be pending before the Court of Appeal. However, the court relied on established case law from the Court of Appeal, particularly the SharkNinja v. Dyson decision (UPC_CoA_297/2024, order of January 20, 2025) and the Hanshow v. VusionGroup SA decision (UPC_CoA_618/2024, decision of June 6, 2025), which supported suspending cost determination proceedings from provisional measures until the conclusion of the main proceedings. The court also referenced the Local Chamber Milan's approach in EOFLOW v. INSULET (UPC_CFI_380/2024, order of February 15, 2025), which held that cost applications should be rejected without substantive review when a main action follows a preliminary injunction, as a unified cost decision at the end of the main proceedings would be more proportionate and efficient. The court further noted that in past similar cases, parties had reached out-of-court settlements after proceedings at multiple levels, often resolving cost claims together. Additionally, the court observed that since the main action was pending before a different Local Chamber, it might be appropriate to transfer the cost proceedings to that chamber as the more closely related panel.

Final Order & Ruling

The court issued two orders. First, it set the value of the dispute for the provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CFI_486/2024) at EUR 1,000,000.00. Second, it ordered the suspension of the cost determination proceedings (UPC_CFI_256/2025) until the final, binding decision on the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_714/2024, UPC_CFI_155/2025) before the Local Chamber Munich. The order was issued in Düsseldorf on August 13, 2026, and signed digitally by Presiding Judge Dr. Anna Bérénice Thom.