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
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.