Short Summary
This provisional procedural order (Order IV) was issued by the Local Division Brussels on 2 May 2025 in case UPC_CFI_131/2025 concerning a request by claimants OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV for payment of litigation costs assessed at €92,814.62 under Rule 151 RoP in proceedings involving EP 2 233 036. The dispute centered on whether the costs proceedings should be suspended pending the defendant's appeal filed on 17 March 2025 against the LD Brussels decision of 17 January 2024 in UPC_CFI_376/2023. The claimants argued that under Article 74(1) UPCA, appeal has no suspensive effect and that no legal basis exists for delaying the costs decision.
Detailed Summary
This provisional procedural order (Order IV) was issued by the Local Division Brussels on 2 May 2025 in case UPC_CFI_131/2025 (Order ORD_8991/2025, Application ACT_7974/2025) under Rule 156 RoP by Judge-Rapporteur Samuel Granata. The claimants are OrthoApnea S.L., a Spanish company based in Malaga, and VIVISOL B BV, a Belgian company based in Lessines. The defendant is an individual whose name was redacted in the public version of the order. The patent at issue is EP 2 233 036. The claimants were represented by Dutch counsel, while the defendant was represented by Belgian and Dutch counsel.
On 17 February 2025, the claimants filed a request for payment of costs under Rule 151 RoP, seeking an order requiring the defendant to pay litigation costs assessed at €92,814.62, plus legal commercial interest from seven days after service of the decision. Following preliminary procedural orders on 25 February 2025 (I) and 13 March 2025 (II), the Judge-Rapporteur invited the parties to submit further submissions. By a further procedural order of 4 April 2025 (III), the Judge-Rapporteur asked the parties to address the consequences of the defendant's appeal—filed on 17 March 2025 against the LD Brussels decision of 17 January 2024 in ACT_581538/2023 (UPC_CFI_376/2023)—for the present costs procedure, and specifically whether it should be suspended.
The claimants (OrthoApnea/Vivisol) argued that Article 74(1) UPCA provides that appeal has no suspensive effect, and that nothing in Article 74(3) UPCA supports the conclusion that no decision on costs may be rendered at the Court of First Instance as a result of the appeal. They contended there is no basis for requiring the appeal in the main proceedings to be resolved before a decision on litigation costs can be made. As the 'successful party,' OrthoApnea asserted it has an evident interest in receiving reimbursement of its litigation costs, and that no legal or factual justification exists for further delaying payment. The claimants emphasized that OrthoApnea did not voluntarily become involved in the proceedings and that it would be unreasonable for an SME such as OrthoApnea to wait a prolonged period for reimbursement of a substantial amount that already covers only a small portion of total litigation costs. They further noted that delaying payment unnecessarily increases collection risk, particularly given the defendant's stated financial position as a micro-entity.
& Analysis: The provided text is truncated and does not include the full reasoning or the final operative part of the order. The available portion sets out the procedural background and the parties' competing submissions on whether the costs proceedings should be suspended pending the appeal, but the Judge-Rapporteur's analysis and final ruling are not contained in the excerpt provided.
Final Order & Ruling: The full dispositive section of the order is not included in the provided text. The order is identified as a provisional procedural order (Order IV) issued pursuant to Rule 156 RoP by Judge-Rapporteur Samuel Granata of the Local Division Brussels.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Brussels (BE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV (Applicants) vs *** 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.