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
Grundfos Holding A/SvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court addressed a request by the plaintiff, Grundfos Holding A/S, for correction of obvious inaccuracies in the operative part of its earlier decision of May 8, 2025, against the defendant, Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court found the correction request admissible and well-founded, as it was filed within the one-month deadline and the defendant did not object, and accordingly corrected several paragraphs of the operative order.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.vsTIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A., holder of European Patent EP 2519412 relating to a tire for motor vehicles and a pair of tires for motor vehicles, filed an application for provisional and precautionary measures against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (China) and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (Germany) ahead of the EICMA international motorcycle exhibition (November 5-10, 2024), alleging that the defendants would exhibit infringing products. The Court declined to grant an ex parte injunction but invited Pirelli to limit its request to seizure, delivery of infringing goods, and procedural costs. Pirelli accordingly narrowed its application, and the Single Judge proceeded to decide the matter under Rule 212(2) given the extreme urgency.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed the service of a patent infringement statement of claim on Xiaomi entities located in China and Hong Kong. It held that service cannot be effected merely through a sister Xiaomi company domiciled in a contracting member state, as such a group company cannot automatically be treated as the defendant's registered seat, head office, principal place of business, or a place of business under Rule 271.5(a). The Court further held that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention pursuant to Rule 274.1(a)(ii) must generally be pursued before resorting to alternative service methods under Rule 275.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbHvsEJP Maschinen GmbH
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which relates to a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. Following the complete revocation of the patent by the EPO Board of Appeal on July 4, 2024, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action under Rule 265 RoP and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The defendant sought a declaration that the revocation counterclaim had become moot under Rule 360 RoP and also requested a 60% reimbursement of 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.