Short Summary
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH had sued defendants Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for patent infringement, while the defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Following a January 14, 2025 decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and dismissing the invalidity counterclaim, the defendants filed a cost assessment application on February 13, 2025 seeking reimbursement of EUR 9,732.21 in costs related to the infringement proceedings.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (a German company based in Taufkirchen), brought an infringement action against the defendants, Mammut Sports Group AG (a Swiss company based in Seon) and Mammut Sports Group GmbH (a German company based in Wolfertschwenden), concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The main infringement proceedings were conducted under case number UPC_CFI_16/2024. The defendants contested the use of the patent and additionally filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent (CC_17292/2024). The plaintiff opposed the revocation counterclaim and filed auxiliary requests for amendment of the patent (App_34230/2024).
On January 14, 2025, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a decision largely granting the infringement claim and dismissing the defendants' revocation counterclaim. The cost allocation decision, as corrected by an order dated January 27, 2025 (App_3399/2025), provided that the plaintiff bears 20% of the costs of the main action while each defendant bears 40%, and the defendants bear the costs of the revocation counterclaim in equal halves. The court set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000 for both the main action and the counterclaim, and the cap on reimbursable costs at EUR 200,000 for each. Appeals against this decision (APL_12159/2025; APL_12161/2025 and APL_12864/2025) were pending before the Court of Appeal at the time of this decision.
On February 13, 2025, the defendants filed a cost assessment application seeking reimbursement of their costs for the infringement proceedings. The defendants' claimed costs included attorney fees and travel expenses for the defendants and their patent attorney for attendance at the oral hearing on November 26, 2024. Based on their cost breakdown, the defendants calculated their total recoverable costs at EUR 9,732.21 and formally requested the court to set the costs at this amount.
& Analysis:
The decision was rendered by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as the rapporteur (Berichterstatter). The proceedings were conducted in German. The matter concerns cost assessment proceedings under Article 69 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and Rules 150, 151, and 152 of the Rules of Procedure. The text of the judgment is incomplete as provided, cutting off at the description of the plaintiff's position ("Die Klägerin ist dem...").
Final Order & Ruling:
The defendants formally requested that the court set the costs at EUR 9,732.21. The full operative order and reasoning of the court are not contained in the provided text excerpt.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH vs Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG 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.