Rule 150 – Separate proceedings for cost decision

1. A cost decision may be the subject of separate proceedings following a decision on the merits and, if applicable, a decision for the determination of damages. The cost decision shall cover costs incurred in the proceedings by the Court such as costs for simultaneous interpretation and costs incurred pursuant to Rules 173, 180.1, 185.7, 188 and 201 and, subject to the Rules 152 to 156, the costs of the successful party including Court fees paid by that party [Rule 151(d)]. Costs for interpretation and translation which is necessary for the judges of the Court in order to conduct the case in the language of proceedings are borne solely by the Court.

2. The Court may order an interim award of costs to the successful party in the decision on the merits [Rule 119] or in a decision for the determination of damages, subject to any conditions that the Court may decide.

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Application filed with the Court of Appeal for the determination of costs dismissed. (R. 150 RoP). Proceedings for cost determination under R. 150 ff. RoP must be initiated before the Court of First Instance (-=CFI), even where they relate to appeal costs. This also applies where the application relates exclusively or in part to the costs of the appeal proceedings.

IPPT20251128, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application for interim measures (R. 206 RoP) .  Order on the application for provisional measures (Rule 211 RoP) No undue delay justified by potential changes of products on the market.  Interim award for costs (Rule 150.RoP) . An interim award of costs may also be ordered in favour of the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures. The fact that R. 211.1(d) RoP, unlike R. 150.2 RoP, does not expressly provide for interim award of costs to the successful party does not preclude this. The same rules apply in proceedings for interim measures as in the main proceedings. An interim award of costs up to the applicable ceiling for cost compensation makes the procedure for cost decision pursuant to R. 150  RoP redundant. 

IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
Interim award of costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP) As a general rule, the successful party is not entitled to an interim reimbursement of representation costs of more than 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs. To what extent the successful party is entitled to a reimbursement of representation costs is to be determined in the proceedings for a cost decision. 

IPPT20250722, UPC CoA, Philips v Belkin
Withdrawal of application for costs allowed without hearing Belkin (R. 265 RoP). Even without the withdrawal, no decision on the merits would have been issued, as the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction for applications for the determination of costs. No decision on costs is required here. As a rule, even the successful party bears the costs of the cost assessment proceedings (R. 150 RoP).

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tiroler v SSAB
Determination of costs following a withdrawal of an action is subject to the ordinary rules (R. 265 RoP, R. 150 et seq. RoP). The legal review on appeal of a decision as per art. R. 150 RoP is limited to a marginal review of whether the judge-rapporteur’s assessment of costs results in the successful party being compensated for legal costs and other expenses beyond what is reasonable and proportionate, or otherwise deviates from the principles inherent in Art. 69(1) UPCA, as specified in R. 150 et seq. RoP.

IPPT20250120, UPC CoA, SharkNinja v Dyson
Inadmissible application for cost decision following decision on provisional measures. An application for a decision for costs can only be lodged within one month after the service of the decision on the merits. (R. 150 RoP). If the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits of the case pursuant to R. 213 RoP, for example, if the application for provisional measures was unsuccessful, R. 150 and 151 RoP do not appear to be applicable, at least on a strict literal reading. However, to fulfil the objectives of Art. 69(1-3) UPCA that the successful party can have its reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses compensated by the unsuccessful party, an application of R. 150 and 151 RoP mutatis mutandis would be justified in that situation.

IPPT20240729, UPC CoA, Hanshow v VusionGroup
Application for determination of costs following an order or decision of the Court of Appeal relating exclusively or partially to the costs of the appeal must be submitted to the Court of First Instance and will be decided by the judge-rapporteur of that court. If the successful party wishes to apply for an order for costs following a decision in principle on the obligation to pay costs, it must submit an application within one month of notification of this decision (Rule 151 RoP).

IPPT20250606, UPC CoA, Hanshow v VusionGroup
No reimbursement of additional costs attributable to cost assessment proceedings as such (R. 150 RoP, Article 69(3) UPCA). Even if a party is successful in proceedings for the assessment of costs under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure, it must generally bear its own costs incurred in the cost proceedings. In exceptional cases, however, a party may be ordered to bear unnecessary costs it has caused to the Court or to another party (Article 69(3) UPCA).
 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260210, UPC CFI, LD Milan, AWM v Progress Maschinen
Appeal against a CFI upholding a counterclaim for revocation has automatic suspensive effect. Stay of proceedings ordered. (Article 74(2) UPCA, Rule. 150 RoP, Rule 295 RoP). The automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety, including the parts relating to legal costs. (Article 69 UPCA) Interpretation that “the automatic suspensive effect provided by law would be limited solely to the provisions of the decision relating strictly to the validity of the patent” introduces an arbitrary limitation that would exclude any suspensive effect relating to other points of the decision, including those relating to legal costs not contemplated by the provision’s wording. The court deviates from the decision in  CD Paris, dated 29.4.2025 (Roche Diabetes v Tandem Diabetes), the aforementioned decision did not consider the applicability of Article 74(2) UPCA at all. And refers to order of LD Brussels dated 2.5.2025 ( OrthoApnea ) where the Court determined that it was permissible to stay the proceedings for cost determination, even in cases where the automatic and mandatory suspensive effect stipulated in Article 74(2) UPCA does not apply.
 

IPPT20260202, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, 10xGenomics v Curio Bioscience
Cost decision on the reimbursability of costs in PI proceedings (Article. 69 UPCA, Rule. 150, 151, 152 RoP). Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately. The decision on the reimbursability of costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. The ceilings for PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately – follow up to Decision of Ortovox v Mammut). If the costs in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately within a ceiling that applies specifically to those proceedings, the costs of both the PI proceedings and the main proceedings are capped by the applicable ceiling. It is inadmissible to mix the costs of the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits or to shift them from one proceeding to the other, even if the results of the PI proceedings may be used in subsequent proceedings on the merits. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that it remains within the ceiling during the PI proceedings. 

IPPT20260105, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communication
Decision on reimbursement of representation costs to the Defendant in appeal proceedings concerning the service of the statement of claim. (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 150 RoP, Rule 152 RoP, Rule 220 RoP) 

IPPT20251015, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v EOFLow
Interim costs decision of CD Milan dated 22 July 2025 confirmed as final and binding decision. (Rule 150 RoP, Rule 151 RoP, Article 69 UPCA).  Rule 150 RoP does not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision.

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
The security for procedural costs in the amount of EUR 56.000,- provided by Ballinno B.V. is to be released to the Defendants. Parties can use the security provided under R. 158 RoP as means to settle a pending application to cost decision, R. 150 RoP, in analogy to R. 265 RoP.

IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v AYLO
No separate proceedings for cost decision for costs incurred in connection with the application for, opposition to or defence against procedural orders ( Rules 150 RoP), including orders for security for costs pursuant to R. 158 RoP. Instead, these costs will be assessed as part of the total costs of the proceedings in the cost assessment proceedings pursuant to R. 150 RoP following the decision on the merits.

IPPT20250727, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components
Reimbursement for costs totaling €  11,200. Cost decision may follow a decision or an order deciding a Preliminary objection (R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP, R. 20 RoP) closing the proceeding so that no further actions will have to be taken in this proceeding. While Rules 150 and 151 RoP speak of a “decision” and not of a “procedural order”, the issue of whether or not a separate cost decision can be issued with regard to a preliminary objection is to be decided considering material criteria. An application for a separate cost decision regarding a preliminary objection is admissible if the proceeding is closed so that no further actions will have to be taken in this proceeding. Generally, this will be the case when a decision or an order ends the proceeding in the first instance. Value of the action set at € 500.000;  the same value set for the revocation proceedings by the Paris Local Division and set for the infringement action, after hearing the parties in the interim conference, the value was set at EUR 500,000.. Non recoverable costs of legal expert (€ 6,720) on interpretation of Article 33(4) UPCA. The team of representatives would have been able to consider the issues raised by the revocation action, and in particular, the issue of the interpretation of Article 33 UPCA, and on that basis prepare adequately and appropriately file their submissions. 

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Kodak v Fujifilm
Cost decision (R. 150 RoP). Defendants’ demand for reimbursement of representation costs for the cost procedure is unfounded. Proceedings for cost decisions under R. 150 et seq. RoP are summary proceedings, determined by the judge-rapporteur. Awarding compensation for the additional costs that can be attributed to the proceedings for cost decisions as such is not envisaged in the Rules. It would give the parties an incentive to spend considerable resources on these summary proceedings. Awarding costs upon costs cannot have been intended in the Rules. A party, even if successful in the context of proceedings for a cost decision under R. 150 RoP, will normally have to carry its own costs attributable to the cost proceedings. In exceptional cases a party may be ordered to bear any unnecessary costs it has caused the Court or another party

IPPT20250502, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea

Costs proceedings suspended until the UPC Court of Appeal has issued a judgment on the merits or the dispute is otherwise terminated (Article 69 UPCA, Article 74 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 295(c) RoP). The Judge-Rapporteur infers that, as an exception to the general rule (starting position), the stay of cost proceedings is possible in the following cases (whether individually or cumulatively): If an appeal has been lodged against the decision on the merits by the first judge (R.295(c) RoP), the Judge-Rapporteur may suspend the proceedings ex officio; If in the light of the "proper administration of justice", it is appropriate for the judge-rapporteur to stay the costs proceedings (in application of R. 295(m) RoP); If the specific circumstances of the case indicate that the application of Article 69(1) would lead to "unfair" consequences for the "unsuccessful party" (in this case, the Respondent), it is the Respondent’s responsibility to convince the Judge-Rapporteur of these “unfair” consequences arising from an enforceable costs decision.

IPPT20250429, UPC CFI, CD Paris, BMW v ITCiCo Spain
Confirmed that costs incurred by successful party regarding application to set aside a decision by default (R. 356 RoP) are to be claimed in separate proceedings for a cost decision (R. 150 RoP). 

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek - II
Ericsson must reimburse AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River after dismissed provisional measures only EUR 4,946.22 (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP). With regard to the costs of representation and the costs of expert evidence claimed by AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River, there may be an overlap with proceedings on the merits, thereby creating a risk of double assessment of costs, contrary to the principles of equity and proportionality.

IPPT20250331, UPC CFI, CD Paris, BMW v ITCiCo Spain
Costs incurred by successful party regarding application to set aside a decision by default (R. 356 RoP) are to be claimed in separate proceedings for a cost decision (R. 150 RoP). 

IPPT20250224, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Bruker v 10x Genomics & Nanostring
Proceedings for costs incurred (€ 337.431,50) following appeal in summary proceedings (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP). Application for a cost decision admissible following a decision on costs (R. 242.1 RoP) by the Court of Appeal in proceedings for interim measures (summary proceedings). Application filed in due time, given extension of the one month period for filing the application as granted by judge-rapporteur (R. 151.1 RoP). The determination of the costs for summary proceedings in cost proceedings is final and is limited to costs claimed within the one month time period.

IPPT20250215, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP) since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore, does not give rise to an award of costs if the filing of an application for preliminary measures has already been followed or is to be followed by proceedings on the merits

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of action, pending appeal (R. 265 RoP). If a case is pending before the court of appeal, the court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admissibility of the applications for withdrawal. However, the situation is different for the request for the determination of the costs to be refunded under Rules 150 RoP. This is currently still pending at first instance, with the result that the court of first instance still has jurisdiction to allow its withdrawal, in accordance with the rules on the procedure for the determination of costs before the Judge-Rapporteur. In any case, Rule 265 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to the proceedings for the determination of costs, even if there is no explicit reference to that rule. Since this is not a measure of the direction of proceedings under Rules 331 et seq. RoP, but a substantive decision within the original jurisdiction of the Judge-Rapporteur under Rule 156.2 RoP, the Judge-Rapporteur also has original and sole jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal. 

IPPT20250108, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v SWAT
No cost decision concerning application for access to written pleadings and evidence (R. 150 RoP, R. 262 RoP). A decision on costs presupposes that there has been a decision on the merits of the dispute or for the determination of damages. For these purposes, a “decision on the merits” must be understood as a decision that concludes litigation proceedings, that is proceedings where the ascertainment of a right is sought by one party against another and is capable of producing the effects of res judicata on conflicting subjective positions and from which a situation of the defeat of one party with respect to another may arise, justifying the award of costs. 

IPPT20241230, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Insulet v Eoflow
Application for cost decision dismissed (R. 150 RoP) because the order refusing intervention did not contain a costs decision deciding in principle on the obligation to bear legal costs in accordance with rule 118.5. RoP

IPPT20241129, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak - II
The Claimant may, at its own expense, engage an interpreter (into Japanese) who may, if necessary, use the equipment available in the courtroom for simultaneous interpretation. (Article 51 UPCA, R. 109 RoP, R. 150 RoP).

IPPT20241011, UPC CFI, LD Munich, MSG v EJP
Infringement action and revocation counterclaim after revocation of the patent by Technical Board of Appeal. Withdrawal of infringement action requires a decision on the allocation of legal costs and other expenses Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 265.2(c) RoP). Unnecessary legal costs and other expenses within the meaning of Art. 69(3) UPCA are those that are caused by a measure that was not necessary and/or unsuitable for enforcing or defending a right and that can be separated as such. However, it does not include costs that are (ultimately) unnecessarily incurred due to unsuccessful enforcement or defence as a whole. These are already covered by the basic rule of Art. 69(1) UPCA […]. Whether a severable measure was unnecessary is to be assessed from the ex ante perspective of a reasonable and economically rational party. An objective standard is to be applied. Reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees for the infringement action (R.  370.9 (b) (i) RoP). No need to adjudicate revocation action (R. 360 RoP). Devoid of purpose because of the revocation of the patent in suit by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO of 4 July 2024. The costs of the revocation proceedings shall be borne by the plaintiff. The defendant is to be reimbursed 60% of the court fees paid for the counterclaim in analogous application of R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP.

IPPT20240625, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycel
Simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing  into Polish allowed, but to be decided later whether the costs thereof shall become costs of the proceedings (Article 51 UPCA, Rule 109 RoP, Rule 150 RoP). Rule 109 RoP includes a double/twofold ‘appropriateness-test’, in the sense that it is to be decided (i) whether allowing translations during the oral hearing is appropriate and (ii) whether it is appropriate that the costs of such interpretation shall become costs of the proceedings. Simultaneous interpretation will in general already be appropriate if the language of the proceedings is not a language that is sufficiently familiar to (one of) the parties or to their counsel. The threshold for allowing interpretation as such is therefore low for R. 109.1-requests. For R. 109.4-requests the threshold seems even lower: for self-paid translations the only restriction seems to be whether it is practically possible (R. 109.2 second sentence). Generally it cannot reasonably be expected that the UPC provides translations to all languages, even if these have no relationship at all with the UPC or with one or more Contracting Member States. It seems reasonable to interpret R. 109.5 in such a way that it does not prevent the Defendant from submitting the costs incurred for interpretation for recovery as costs of the proceedings at a later point in the proceedings, if facts and/or circumstances are established that make it unreasonable for Defendant to bear these costs. 

IPPT20230913, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee
The scope of protection of a European patent is to be interpreted on the basis of Article 69 (1) EPC including its interpretative protocol in conjunction with Article  24(1)(c) UPCA. Accordingly, the scope of protection of the patent is determined by the content of the patent claims, for the interpretation of which the description and the drawings must also be taken into account. In this respect, the interpretation of the patent claims serves not only to eliminate any ambiguities, but also to explain the technical terms used therein and to clarify the meaning and scope of the invention described therein. The patent description is the source material for determining the technical teaching that is protected by the patent claim. This form of interpretation combines adequate protection for the patent proprietor with sufficient legal certainty for third parties. The aspect of legal certainty requires that interested third parties are able to recognise whether a contemplated, planned or already realised specific embodiment falls within the scope of protection of the patent claim. In proceedings for interim measures, the successful defendant can be finally awarded procedural costs upon application (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 150 RoP). The applicant cannot successfully claim the costs of these proceedings as the unsuccessful party, even if the proceedings on the merits are successful.