Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. 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 provide €800,000 in security for Aylo's procedural costs. The Court granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
Detailed Summary
This order, issued on January 9, 2025, by Panel 2 of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (Presiding Judge Rian Kalden, Judges Ingeborg Simonsson and Patricia Rombach as Rapporteur), concerned an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. (both of Englewood, USA) for reimbursement of court fees under R.370.11 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings related to the patent EP 2 479 680 and were conducted in German.
The underlying dispute arose from an order of October 4, 2024, issued by the Rapporteur of the Local Division Mannheim, which required DISH and Sling to provide security of €800,000 for Aylo's procedural costs within three weeks of service. DISH and Sling filed a precautionary appeal against this order and simultaneously requested a panel decision at the Court of First Instance. The panel of the Local Division Mannheim rejected this request by order of November 4, 2024. Subsequently, on application by DISH and Sling, the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal by order of November 19, 2024, applying R.265 RoP analogously.
DISH and Sling then sought reimbursement of the €1,500.00 court fees paid for the appeal, or alternatively 60% (€900.00) of those fees. They argued that they had been compelled to file the appeal solely due to incorrect legal remedy instructions in the contested order, in order to avoid missing appeal deadlines and suffering irreversible disadvantages from the decision becoming final. They contended this special circumstance justified full reimbursement, or alternatively that at least 60% should be reimbursed pursuant to R.370.9(b)(i) RoP.
The Court of Appeal held that the application succeeded only with respect to the alternative request. The Court reasoned that under R.370.11 RoP, a party seeking reimbursement must file a reasoned application, and reimbursement is only available for the cases listed in Rules 370.9 and 370.10 RoP. The Court noted that in the case of withdrawal of an action under R.265 RoP, the party obliged to pay court fees receives 60% reimbursement if the proceedings are withdrawn before completion of the written procedure, per R.370.9(b)(i) RoP. The Court held that just as R.265 RoP applies analogously in the case of withdrawal of an appeal, R.370.9(b)(i) RoP also applies analogously in the case of withdrawal of an appeal. However, the Court found that the Rules of Procedure do not provide for any further reimbursement beyond this 60% in the case of withdrawal of an appeal.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal ordered, while rejecting the further request for full reimbursement, that 60% of the court fees for the appeal be reimbursed to DISH and Sling.
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
Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action. The court corrected a typo in the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025, specifying the details of the oral hearing venue and time.
Seoul Viosys Co., LtdvsLaser Components SAS
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd, a Korean LED chip manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 3 404 726 relating to ultraviolet light-emitting devices, brought an infringement action against Laser Components SAS before the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. The court found that Laser Components' UVC LED chips (PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35, and PKD-H02-F35) infringed claims 1 and 18 of the patent, and granted injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure orders, while reserving the question of damages.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entitiesvsAccord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Corning IncorporatedvsHisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning patent EP 3 296 274, in which defendants from the Hisense, TCL, and LG groups sought a stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP pending a related action against the alleged glass manufacturer. The court rejected the stay applications, finding no obligation to sue OEMs and their suppliers jointly, and ordered the parties to use a single workflow for future submissions.
Lionra Technologies Ltd.vsCisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by Lionra Technologies Ltd. for retroactive extension of time, alternatively reinstatement, regarding the missed deadline under R. 151 RoP for filing a cost determination application. The court rejected the primary request for retroactive extension of time, holding that R. 9.3(a) RoP only permits the court to decide retroactively on a timely-filed extension request, but granted the alternative request for reinstatement under R. 320.1 RoP, finding that the plaintiff's oversight by two employees within a proper four-eyes deadline control system constituted a reason beyond the party's control.
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.