Short Summary
This is a definitive correction order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court on August 19, 2025, correcting a cost order (Kostenbeslissing) issued on July 25, 2025. The correction addressed a calculation error in paragraph 46 of the cost order, which had omitted the expert costs of VASQUEZ (€2,200) awarded under paragraph 36, resulting in a corrected total of €43,856.64. The court also clarified that the correction order does not suspend or affect the appeal time limits under R. 221(1) RoP.
Detailed Summary
This procedural decision (ORD_35065/2025, also issued as ORD_34423/2025) was rendered by Judge-Rapporteur Samuel Granata of the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court on August 19, 2025, in case UPC_CFI_131/2025.
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 judgment. The underlying main case is UPC_CFI_376/2023 (ACT_581538/2023), which is an infringement action.
On July 25, 2025, the court issued a cost order (Kostenbeslissing) under R. 131 RoP (ORD_33711/2025 - ORD_8991/2024). The claimants submitted a request for correction (rectification) on August 1, 2025, under R. 353 RoP, arguing that the cost order contained a material error. Specifically, they pointed out that the expert costs of VASQUEZ (€2,200), which had been awarded and motivated under paragraph 36 of the cost order, were not included in the total sum set out in paragraph 46. The corrected total should amount to €43,856.64.
The defendant was invited to submit observations on August 7, 2025, but did not provide any comments within the prescribed deadline. By letter of August 18, 2025, the defendant confirmed having no observations and deferred to the court's wisdom regarding the correction request.
The court found that the omission constituted a clear calculation error (rekenfout) within the meaning of R. 353 RoP. It corrected paragraph 46 of the cost order to include all awarded costs: representation costs (capped at R. 152 RoP) of €2,200 and €38,000, expert costs (R. 153 RoP) including experiment and expertise ('in vivo') costs of €374.06 and VASQUEZ costs of €2,200, translation and interpretation costs (R. 155 RoP, reduced ex aequo et bono) of €1,500, and travel and accommodation costs of €1,782.58, for a corrected total of €43,856.64.
The court further established important headnotes: (1) A request for correction under R. 353 RoP serves to correct material errors and/or clear typos or calculation errors, with a calculation error being a mistake in an arithmetic operation; and (2) The court cannot revisit the reasoning of its decision within an R. 353 RoP procedure. Since the court's jurisdiction regarding the subject matter of the correction order (the earlier decision) is exhausted, the correction order cannot have an expanding or limiting effect on the earlier decision. Alleged errors of law, logic, or any other intellectual mistakes do not form the subject matter of a correction order. Consequently, a correction order (or a request therefor) has no influence on the time limits for appeal, which commence from the issuance of the original decision.
Applied to the circumstances, the court held that the time limits under R. 221(1) RoP regarding a potential appeal against the cost decision (ORD_33711/2025 - ORD_8991/2024) are not affected by the issuance of the correction order or the request therefor. The cost decision itself remains the guiding instrument for appeal purposes.
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 vs [Defendant] is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Brita SEvsNingbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
Brita SE obtained an order from the Local Chamber Hamburg on December 9, 2025, against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1, including a cease-and-desist obligation and an information disclosure obligation. After the defendant failed to comply with both obligations and waived its right to challenge the order, Brita sought renewed coercive measures. The court imposed a coercive fine of EUR 97,500 for continued advertising of the infringing embodiment on the defendant's websites and EUR 105,000 for continued non-compliance with the information order, while threatening further daily fines.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Managing DirectorsvsKoninklijke Philips N.V.
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin companies to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy infringing wireless chargers, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings. The court also addressed key legal questions regarding the interpretation of 'offering' under Art. 25 EPGÜ, liability of managing directors for patent infringement, and the proportionality of corrective measures.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A.vsZhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd. and Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a review of a confidentiality order before the Local Division Munich regarding EP 2 147 029. The defendants sought to exclude two individuals from the confidentiality club on the grounds that they were not employees of the claimant but of related entities within the Syensqo group. The panel confirmed the confidentiality order, holding that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require membership to be limited to employees of the party and that employees of the party's economic unit may be admitted to the confidentiality club.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsBhagat Textile Engineers
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.