Executive Summary
This UPC decision addresses a complex costs dispute arising from an intervention request in parallel provisional measures proceedings. Insulet Corporation sought reimbursement for legal costs incurred while defending against Menarini Diagnostics' attempt to intervene in the main infringement case. The Court upheld Insulet's claim, establishing that even parties not formally named can be subject to cost awards if they are deemed 'successful.' This ruling clarifies the scope of recoverable costs related to intervention proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that a party who is not formally named as a primary party can still be subject to cost awards under Rule 151 RoP if they are deemed the 'successful party' in a sub-proceeding, provided the application meets proportionality and reasonableness standards. The court affirmed that legal costs for defending against an intervention request are recoverable.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Milan (IT) Central Division- Section, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KGvsALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for protection of trade secrets between CUP&CINO and ALPINA Coffee Systems. The court successfully classified specific financial data submitted by the respondent as confidential business information under Article 58 EPC. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial data during litigation, ensuring that proprietary information remains restricted to authorized parties.
Cardo Systems, Ltd.vsShenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited
Cardo Systems successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited regarding the patented fastening device EP 4 240 194. The Court granted the preliminary measure without hearing the defendants, immediately halting their ability to market or use the infringing product across UPC member states. This decision highlights the speed and effectiveness of provisional measures within the Unified Patent Court system for protecting IP rights.
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim ruled in favor of Hurom Co., Ltd., granting protection for confidential information related to legal representation costs. Specifically, the court classified the detailed breakdown of attorneys' hours worked as strictly confidential under R. 262A RoP and Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the principle that professional client-attorney privilege extends to cost documentation within UPC proceedings, safeguarding sensitive operational details.
Seoul Viosys Co., LtdvsLaser Components SAS
In a significant decision for the LED industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris found Laser Components SAS liable for infringing Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s patent EP3404726. The court granted a permanent injunction against the sale and use of the infringing UVC LED chips across France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to provide extensive sales and distribution data, allowing the claimant to proceed with calculating full damages.
CooperSurgical, Inc.vsEuropean Distribution Center Motiva BVBA; Establishment Labs S.A.; PulseLavage AB
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 302 292 B1, the infringement action brought by CooperSurgical was withdrawn with the consent of the Defendants. The Court then issued a comprehensive cost decision that significantly favored the Defendants. Despite the withdrawal, the Claimant was ordered to pay over €187,000 in costs and expenses to the defendants, although they were granted reimbursement for 60% of their court fees.
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.