Short Summary
This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.
Detailed Summary
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, had applied for preliminary measures directed against the marketing of Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s contested embodiment Epysqli®. On 26 June 2024, the Local Division Hamburg dismissed the application for provisional measures and ordered Alexion to bear the costs of the proceedings. The value of the dispute was set at €100,000,000, with a ceiling for recoverable costs of €2,000,000.
Following this dismissal, Samsung Bioepis submitted an application for a cost decision on 27 July 2024, claiming costs for the first instance. The claimed costs included fees for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, two English solicitors, travel and accommodation expenses for the oral hearing in Hamburg, expert costs for Prof. Kontermann who delivered two expert opinions, and costs for two Samsung Bioepis employees (Remco de Haas, Commercial Director, and Erne van Proosdij, Legal Manager) who attended the oral hearing.
Samsung Bioepis argued that the instruction of more than one legal representative and patent attorney was justified given the complexity and high value of the case. It further argued that the involvement of two English solicitors was reasonable because they coordinated proceedings across Europe, managed parallel nullity proceedings before English courts, and had been involved in EPO proceedings concerning patents from the same family. Samsung Bioepis contended that the English solicitors' involvement led to cost savings through identification of prior art, development of technical arguments, expert searches, expert interviews, preparation of expert opinions, and preparation of commercial witness declarations.
Alexion objected to the costs on several grounds: (1) the redacted invoices did not sufficiently demonstrate that costs were actually incurred in connection with the UPC proceedings; (2) the invoice included costs for Julia Mroz, who was not named as a legal representative; (3) costs for UK solicitors and their travel expenses were unreasonable; (4) travel expenses of patent attorneys from Hoffmann Eitle were unreasonably high, as they arrived two days before the oral hearing and booked a 'rooftop package' at the hotel; and (5) expert costs for Prof. Kontermann could not be verified due to lack of access to invoices.
The court applied Article 69(1) UPCA and Rules 152 and 153 RoP, holding that reasonable and proportionate legal costs shall generally be borne by the unsuccessful party. The court explained that 'reasonable' essentially means 'necessary'—whether the measure incurring the costs was objectively necessary and appropriate for achieving the legitimate object of the proceedings. Costs must be cumulatively reasonable and appropriate, which is always a matter of individual assessment.
The court found the application partially justified. It recognized the costs for two legal representatives and two patent attorneys as reasonable given the complexity and high value of the case. However, the court rejected the costs for the two English solicitors, finding that Samsung Bioepis failed to provide a comprehensible explanation as to why it was appropriate and necessary for two English solicitors to be involved. The court noted that the general statements about coordination across Europe and parallel proceedings did not provide concrete indication of specific value in the present proceedings. The court found it particularly problematic that the costs attributed to the two UK solicitors were higher than those incurred by the five legal representatives and patent attorneys, contradicting principles of efficiency.
The court recognized the expert costs for Prof. Kontermann as eligible for reimbursement, finding that Samsung Bioepis had sufficiently demonstrated the specific number of hours worked and costs claimed through the expert's invoices. Regarding travel expenses, the court found arrival on the day before the preparation of the oral hearing to be reasonable, ensuring proper preparation. The court did not consider the alternative calculation based on the German Lawyers' Fees Act (RVG) relevant, as different reimbursement principles apply under the UPC.
The court ordered Alexion to reimburse Samsung Bioepis for the recognized costs, with payment to be made within three weeks of service of the decision. In all other respects, the application for a cost decision was dismissed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Hamburg (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Advanced Standard Communication LLCvsMotorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility entities and Lenovo. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it admissible but not meritorious, as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.vsSWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed whether to admit the withdrawal of an appeal by the defendant-appellant Strabag following an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiff Swarco, and whether the separate appeal filed by the intervener Chainzone (which supported Strabag) became moot as a result. The Court held that the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal was admissible and that Chainzone's appeal became moot under Rule 360 RoP, because the intervener cannot maintain an independent position contradicting the supported party. The Court further ruled that Chainzone should generally be treated like Strabag regarding costs.
air up group GmbHvsRespondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
Malikie Innovations LimitedvsXiaomi Corporation
The Local Division Mannheim of the Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of both an infringement action (UPC_CFI_1733/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1537/2026) concerning European patent EP 2 387 862, as the parties had reached a mutual agreement before the closure of the written procedure. The court ordered a proportional reimbursement of court fees, granting 50% reimbursement to each side (15,500 € to the Claimant and 13,250 € to the Defendants). No cost decision was rendered, as all parties declared that one was not requested.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, IrlandvsCOA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 642 632 after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Nera Innovations Ltd. had appealed the Local Division Hamburg's decision dismissing its infringement action and partially revoking the patent, while Xiaomi had cross-appealed the counterclaim decision. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal requests and made no cost applications, leading the court to declare the proceedings terminated.
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.