Executive Summary
This UPC decision addressed a complex costs procedure initiated by OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV against an individual respondent. The claimants sought to significantly increase the recoverable costs beyond the administrative ceiling of €38,000 due to high actual expenses. The Court partially granted the claim, setting the final cost award at €41,656.64 by applying its discretion within the established ceilings for representation and expertise. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding costs and the limits set by administrative decisions in UPC proceedings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court affirmed that while claims for increased costs were rejected, it applied its discretion (a large margin of appreciation) to set limits on recoverable representation costs based on administrative ceilings. The court also clarified the burden of proof regarding claimed costs, requiring claimants to submit supporting evidence when challenged by the respondent.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Brussels (BE) Local Division, 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
Network System Technologies LLC.vsVolkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request from Volkswagen AG seeking permission to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court confirmed that under the Rules of Procedure, parties can lodge reasoned requests to exchange further submissions if necessary to correct facts or clarify issues. By allowing this request, the Court ensured all relevant factual arguments could be presented before closing the written phase.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AGvsTandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC confirmed a settlement agreement reached between F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court upheld the request for confidentiality regarding the terms of this settlement. While the case against these two parties is concluded via settlement, litigation continues against other defendants involved in the infringement proceedings.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbHvsSTEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation regarding the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell,' citing difficulties in accessing the machine. The UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately dismissed this application. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures, even when a main infringement action is pending, emphasizing that procedural requirements must be strictly met.
Nokia Technologies OyvsAmazon Europe Core S.à r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against a preliminary procedural order issued in the main infringement case involving Amazon. The core issue was whether the appeal remained viable after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently withdrew the original patent infringement claim. The court determined that because the underlying dispute had been resolved, the appeal itself became moot. This ruling reinforces the principle of procedural efficiency within the UPC system, confirming that appeals must be dismissed when the subject matter they address is no longer legally relevant.
Pari Pharma GmbHvsKoninklijke Philips N.V.
In this UPC revocation action concerning a nebulizer head patent, the Court found that the original claim lacked novelty. However, the case demonstrated the critical importance of amendment strategies in UPC litigation. By successfully amending the claims to overcome prior art objections, the defendant managed to save the patent, illustrating how strategic adjustments can preserve IP rights even when facing significant validity challenges.
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.