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
Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP International SARL, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP Austria GmbH, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP France SAS, HPvsDolby International AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) under the Rules of Procedure, holding that unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party pursuant to R. 315.4 RoP and is therefore entitled to the protections of R. 262A.6 RoP. The ruling clarified that the circle of persons authorized to access confidential information must include at least one natural person beyond the intervener's procedural representatives.
Seoul Viosys Co., LtdvsLaser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/07/2024 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - Répub
Arm Germany GmbH, Arm lreland Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited, ARM Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, SVF Holdco, Simulity Labs LimitedvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
Cardo Systems, Ltd.vsShenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And other
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
AIM Sport Vision AGvsSupponor Oy, Limited, SASU, España SL, Italia SRL
In this legal proceeding before Helsinki (FI) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-10-20) under reference UPC-001689, AIM Sport Vision AG appeared in dispute with Supponor Oy, Limited, SASU, España SL, Italia SRL concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.