Short Summary
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court following the rejection of SES-imagotag SA's application for interim measures against four Hanshow group companies. The court assessed the recoverable costs of the prevailing respondents (Hanshow entities) at €200,000, applying a plausibility check rather than requiring minute-by-hour breakdowns, and rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding excessive representation and non-recoverable interpretation costs.
Detailed Summary
This decision concerns the assessment of costs (Kostenfestsetzung) for the first instance proceedings in case UPC_CFI_292/2023 before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, issued on October 11, 2024.
Background: SES-imagotag SA (applicant) had filed an application for interim measures (Article 62 EPGÜ) against four Hanshow group companies: Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd (China), Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V. The Local Chamber rejected the application on December 20, 2023, and ordered SES-imagotag to bear the costs of the proceedings, including costs arising from a protective letter (Schutzschrift) filed on August 10, 2023, up to a cap of €200,000 (based on a dispute value of €2,000,000). SES-imagotag's appeal against this order was unsuccessful (Court of Appeal decision of July 29, 2024).
The Hanshow respondents applied for cost assessment of €200,000, claiming costs for: (1) the protective letter (approximately €12,141, including legal fees, patent attorney fees, and translation costs of €1,635); and (2) the interim proceedings (including legal fees of €223,594 for three lawyers with 160.5, 241.2, and 118.9 hours respectively, patent attorney fees of €59,960 for three patent attorneys, and translation/simultaneous interpretation costs of €4,450).
SES-imagotag's objections: (1) the costs for lawyers, patent attorneys, and translations were not sufficiently substantiated; (2) the number of representatives was excessive given the case's limited legal and technical complexity; (3) there was a disproportionate ratio between legal and patent attorney costs; and (4) the simultaneous interpretation costs were not recoverable because no request under Rule 109 EPGVerfO had been made.
Court's reasoning and key holdings:
1. On substantiation: Under Rules 151(d) and 156 EPGVerfO, a detailed hour-by-hour or minute-by-minute breakdown with written evidence is not required. A plausibility check is sufficient, and individual review of each cost item is not necessary if the total cost claim passes such a check.
2. On number of representatives: Given that the application was directed against four group-affiliated companies, it was appropriate for them to be jointly represented by a team of three lawyers and two patent attorneys.
3. On time expenditure: Up to 150 hours per lawyer and 40 hours per patent attorney was deemed appropriate. The court cross-referenced the German Federal Court of Justice's standard of 150-180 hours for court-appointed experts in patent nullity proceedings as a comparable benchmark.
4. On translation costs: The €4,450 for simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing was not recoverable because no request under Rule 109 EPGVerfO had been made (Rule 109.5 EPGVerfO).
5. On travel costs: These were not recoverable as they were not specifically claimed in the brief itself, even though they appeared in attachments.
Total appropriate costs were calculated at €202,041.00 (€35,500 + €154,400 + €12,141), but capped at the €200,000 ceiling.
Decision: SES-imagotag SA was ordered to reimburse the Hanshow respondents €200,000 in costs for the first instance by November 8, 2024. The decision is subject to appeal under Rule 221 before the Court of Appeal.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in SES-imagotag SA vs Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH and othersvsWashtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.
Microsoft CorporationvsSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation applied for an order under Rule 262A RoP to treat certain exhibit information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours worked, tasks performed, and billing rates. The respondent objected, arguing no specific confidentiality grounds were provided. The Court granted the confidentiality request, finding the information met the criteria for confidential treatment and attorney-client privilege, but dismissed the request for a predetermined penalty payment.
CooperSurgical, Inc.vsEuropean Distribution Center Motiva BVBA, Establishment Labs S.A. and PulseLavage AB
This case concerned an infringement action filed by CooperSurgical, Inc. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) regarding EP 3 302 292 B1. After the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent on 30 September 2025, the Claimant withdrew the action. The Court allowed the withdrawal and assessed the costs to be reimbursed to the Defendants, ordering the Claimant to pay €105,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and €81,423.33 to Defendant 3, while also ordering reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L.vsOTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Steros GPA Innovative S.L., the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 4 249 647 B1, against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for infringement relating to an electrolytic medium used in electropolishing. The court found that the defendant's attacked embodiment (EF 16-11 electrolyte medium) infringed claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, that the patent was likely valid on the balance of probabilities, and that the weighing of interests favored the applicant. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist from the infringing activities across multiple UPC member states, subject to a recurring penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
AIM Sport Development AGvsTGI Sport Suomi Oy et al. (CMS no ACT_551054/2023)
This order from the Local Division Helsinki of the Unified Patent Court concerned a preliminary injunction (PI) application filed by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI Sport entities (formerly Supponor) regarding European patent EP 3 295 663. The parties agreed that the PI application had become devoid of purpose and there was no need to adjudicate on it, but they disagreed on costs. The Court disposed of the PI application under R. 360 RoP, set the value of the PI proceedings at EUR 9.9 million, and ordered AIM Sport to bear TGI's reasonable and proportionate costs up to a ceiling of EUR 800,000.
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.