Short Summary
This decision addresses cost assessment proceedings arising from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The court examined the defendant's objection that the plaintiff's claimed recoverable representation costs were unreasonable in amount. The court established that a party challenging the reasonableness of costs must provide substantiated factual submissions explaining why the costs are disproportionate in relation to the matter's significance, complexity, and prospects of success.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, based in Ahlen, Germany, brought a patent infringement action against the defendant, Bette GmbH & Co. KG, based in Delbrück, Germany, concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The main proceedings were conducted under case reference ACT_459767/2023. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent (CC_573257/2023), to which the plaintiff responded with auxiliary requests for amendment (App_586918/2023). On July 3, 2024, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a decision largely granting the infringement claim and maintaining the patent in restricted form. Under the cost allocation ruling, the plaintiff was to bear 15% and the defendant 85% of the costs of the main action, while both parties were to bear 50% each of the costs of the counterclaim. The dispute value could be derived from the caps on recoverable representation costs: EUR 500,000.00 for the main action and EUR 500,000.00 for the counterclaim. On August 5, 2024, the plaintiff filed an application for cost assessment (ACT_45185/2024), quantifying its costs, including court fees of EUR 11,000.00.
The proceedings concerned the assessment of costs under Article 69 of the relevant agreement and Rules 150, 151, and 152 of the Rules of Procedure. The central legal issue was the defendant's objection regarding the allegedly unreasonable amount of the recoverable representation costs claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant challenged whether the costs sought were proportionate.
& Analysis: The court, through Judge Dr. Thom as the reporting judge, established two guiding principles regarding the objection of unreasonable cost amounts. First, the party raising such an objection must provide substantiated factual submissions (substantiierter Sachvortrag). Second, to assess whether costs are reasonable in amount, it must be explained why those costs are disproportionate, particularly in relation to the significance of the matter, the difficulty and complexity of the legally and factually relevant issues, and the prospects of success of the cost-triggering measure. The court thereby set standards for evaluating proportionality challenges in cost assessment proceedings.
Final Order & Ruling: The decision was rendered on May 13, 2025, in German, addressing the cost assessment proceedings. The keywords indicate the decision focused on cost assessment, unreasonable amount, and caps (Obergrenze). The court applied the requirement for substantiated submissions when challenging the reasonableness of cost amounts, providing guidance on the standards for such objections in future proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG vs Respondent 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.