Short Summary
The Court of Appeal addressed an application by DISH Technologies and Sling TV for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to post €800,000 in security for Aylo's costs. The Court of Appeal granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees (€900) under R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
Detailed Summary
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (both based in Englewood, USA) were plaintiffs in a main proceeding before the Local Division Mannheim against several AYLO entities (AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC). The patent in dispute was EP 2 479 680. On October 4, 2024, the reporting judge of the Local Division Mannheim ordered DISH and Sling to provide security in the amount of €800,000 for Aylo's procedural costs within three weeks of service of the order.
DISH and Sling filed a precautionary appeal against the security order and simultaneously requested a panel decision at the first instance court. The panel of the Local Division Mannheim rejected the request for a panel decision by order of November 4, 2024. Subsequently, DISH and Sling withdrew the appeal, which the Court of Appeal permitted by order of November 19, 2024, applying R.265 of the Rules of Procedure by analogy. Following the withdrawal, DISH and Sling applied for reimbursement of the court fees paid for the appeal in the amount of €1,500, or alternatively 60% of the fees (€900). They argued that they had been compelled to file the appeal solely due to an erroneous legal remedy instruction in the contested order, and that this exceptional circumstance justified full reimbursement. In the alternative, they relied on R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides for a 60% reimbursement in cases of withdrawal.
& Analysis:
The Court of Appeal held that an application for reimbursement of court fees under R.370.11 of the Rules of Procedure is only available for the cases enumerated in Rules 370.9 and 370.10. The court found that the main request for full reimbursement was not justified, as the situation did not fall within any of the specific grounds for full reimbursement under the Rules. However, the alternative request succeeded. Under R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, in the case of withdrawal of the action, the party obliged to pay the court fees is entitled to reimbursement of 60% of the fees paid. Since the appeal had been withdrawn under R.265 of the Rules of Procedure, this provision applied, entitling DISH and Sling to reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees.
Final Order & Ruling:
The Court of Appeal ruled that the application for reimbursement succeeded only with respect to the alternative request. DISH and Sling were awarded reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid for the appeal, amounting to €900. The request for full reimbursement of €1,500 was rejected. The order was issued by Panel 2, composed of Presiding Judge Rian Kalden, legally qualified judges Ingeborg Simonsson and Patricia Rombach (the latter serving as rapporteur).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. vs AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC, is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.vsJingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE. LTD.vsAtlas Global Technologies GmbH
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH brought infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four TP-LINK entities concerning European Patents EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937. The defendants filed a request on May 26, 2025 to stay the proceedings. With the agreement of both parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the proceedings stayed pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure until the EPO's decision becomes final or the opposition appeal proceedings are concluded.
Sumi Agro Europe LimitedvsRespondent
This is a procedural order in preliminary measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the scheduled oral hearing from 11 July 2024 to 12 July 2024 due to a conflicting hearing at the Düsseldorf Regional Court. After the claimant confirmed its availability for 12 July 2024, the court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing.
Dyson Technology LimitedvsDREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four entities of the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg granted the injunction against the Hong Kong-based manufacturer, the German distributor, and the Swedish affiliate for the UPCA territory, and against the manufacturer and the German Authorized Representative also with respect to Spain, while dismissing the application for the remaining parts.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)vsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
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.