Rule 151 – Start of proceedings for cost decision

Where the successful party (hereinafter "the applicant") wishes to seek a cost decision, it shall within one month of service of the decision lodge an Application for a cost decision which shall contain:

(a) particulars in accordance with Rule 13.1(a) to (d);

(b) the date of the decision and the action number of the file;

(c) a statement as to whether the decision on the merits is the subject of an appeal, if known at the date of the Application;

(d) an indication of the costs for which compensation is requested, which may include recovery of court fees and costs of representation, of witnesses, of experts, and other expenses; and

(e) the preliminary estimate of the legal costs that the party submitted pursuant to Rule 118.5.

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260427, UPC CoA, Niche v Onward
Withdrawal of application for the assessment of costs permitted, without need to hear the respondent. The application has not yet been served on the respondent (R. 265 RoP, R. 151 RoP)
 

IPPT20251128, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink

The Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs only applies to representation costs ,  there can be additional costs in the form of recovery of court fees, costs of witnesses, costs of experts, and other expenses ( R. 151(d) RoP). 

IPPT20250820, UPC CoA, expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys
Leave to appeal - request to refer questions to the CJEU denied (R. 221 RoP, Article 21 UPCA). Right to seek a cost decision (Article 69 UPCA) elapses after expiry of the one month time limit (R. 151 RoP). Can only be remedied through reestablishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). UPCA and RoP must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with EU law (Article 20 UPCA). The UPC cannot ask to the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the RoP: a referral of questions to the CJEU on interpretation of Art. 69 UPCA and R. 151 RoP as suggested by expert cannot be made. For there to be jurisdiction of the CJEU (Article 21 UPCA) the request for a preliminary ruling must concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter applicable to the case in the main proceedings. No reason to refer any questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the one month time limit of R. 151 RoP (Article 14 Enforcement Directive). The provision is not complex. The requirement does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve their objective. The provision clearly does not disproportionately affect the party’s right to effective judicial protection. In addition R. 320 RoP provides for re-establishment of rights.  

IPPT20250606, UPC CoA, Hanshow v VusionGroup
A decision on cost for provisional measures proceedings must be applied for within one month of service of the decision on the merits (R. 151.1 RoP). If no proceedings on the merits are pending the on month time limit begins with the service of the first instance order for provisional measures. The time limit of R. 151 RoP is not included in the list of time limits contained in R. 9.4 RoP that cannot be extended by the Court under R. 9.3 RoP. However, R. 9 RoP is to be understood as applying to pending proceedings. Upon expiry of the one-month period pursuant to R. 151 RoP, the substantive right of the successful party to apply for a decision on costs expires. R. 151 RoP is to be regarded as materially preclusive. Re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP) is generally applicable and must be regarded as a general rule in this case. A party may apply for re-establishment within one month of the reason for missing the deadline being removed – but in any case within six months of the missed deadline.

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.

IPPT20240806, UPC CoA, Nera v Xiaomi
IPPT20240805, UPC CoA, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Statement of claim cannot be validly served on Xiaomi companies in China and Hong Kong at the business address of Xiaomi DE in Germany (Rule 273 - 274 RoP). No decision on costs by the Court of Appeal because the decision in appeal is not a final order or concluding an action (Rule 151 RoP, Rule 242(1) RoP)

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).

IPPT20240705, UPC CoA, 10x v Curio
Withdrawal of appeal from provisional measure with consent (Rule 265 RoP, Rule 151(d) RoP).The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that in case of a withdrawal of an appeal, the appellant shall be considered to be the unsuccessful party who shall bear the costs (as referred to in R.151(d) RoP) incurred in relation to the appeal proceedings. The cost of the appeal incurred by Curio shall be borne by 10x , in an amount to be determined by the Court of First Instance (as requested by both parties) 

Court of First Instance:

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. 

IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Heraeus v Vibrantz
Re-establishment of rights granted in the context of a failure to observe a time limit for initiating a procedure for cost decision in the context of a cost ratio. ( Rule 320 RoP , Rule 151 RoP) Dissenting opinion issued pursuant to Article. 36 Statute of the UPC. Claimant missed the application deadline (Rule 151 RoP). Where a cost ratio has been determined, both parties are required to lodge within the time limit an application for a decision on their respective costs. By contrast, it is the opinion of the majority of the panel that the possibility for the other party to comment is limited to raising objections to the cost items listed by the applicant party - such objections cannot form the basis for offsetting the other party’s own regularly incurred cost items. (Rule 156.1 RoP). Where a party has failed to observe a time limit, despite all due care having been taken, the relevant panel of the Court may upon the request of that party re-establish the right or means of redress. (Rule 320.1 RoP). Dissenting opinion of Judge Brinkman disagreeing  with the narrow interpretation of the regulations.  (Article. 36 of The Statute of The Unified Patent Court, Article 69 UPCA ) . The application to be inadmissible due to a lack of legal interest – application should be admitted in the cost proceedings, thus making re-establishment of rights unnecessary and devoid of legal interest. It is clear from the Rules of Procedure and Article 69 UPCA that a “cost decision” means a decision on the reimbursement of costs. However, in this case the Claimant is not requesting a cost decision, they are only requesting that their 40% portion be used as a deduction from the amount they have to pay to the Defendants 

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). Costs relating to enforcement do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP and must be excluded (Rule 151 RoP) Enforcement costs falls outside the jurisdiction of the UPC. 

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. 

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Ballinno v Kinexon
Protection of confidential information in application for a cost decision denied (R. 151 RoP, R. 262A RoP). The information regarding the litigation costs does not concern the main subject matter of the revocation proceedings and does not directly influence Claimant´s business activities, as would be the case, for example, if technical information from research and development or concluded license agreements were the subject of the confidentiality application. 
Further, the Court considers the limitation of the requested access to just one representative of Defendant to be unduly burdensome.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce – I
Defendant’s application for the determination of reimbursable costs is inadmissible because it was not filed within one month of service of the decision (R. 151 RoP)

IPPT20250409, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Withdrawal as suggested (R. 265 RoP) of applications for a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) and for protection of confidential information (R. 262 RoP). No cost reimbursement is warranted in the context of an application pursuant to R. 262 RoP or the withdrawal thereof

IPPT20250319, UPC CFI, LD Munich, MSG v EJP
€ 33.224,50 compensation for representation costs (Article 69 UPCA), R. 151 RoP, R. 152 RoP). Costs of legal proceedings are those costs that have been (actually) incurred in the specific pending or relevant proceedings. These include, in particular, the costs listed in Rule 151(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Other costs are those that have not been incurred in the pending proceedings but are directly and closely related to the proceedings in question. 
 

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.

IPPT20241223, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v Menarini
Cost decision to pay € 1,764 for legal costs regarding unsuccessful intervention. Application to intervene opens sub-proceedings (R. 313 RoP). Successful party in intervention sub-proceedings entitled to ask for legal costs  compensation (R. 151 RoP, Article 69 UPCA) in accordance with the general principle that the successful party is entitled to recover from the unsuccessful party the costs incurred in the proceedings. 

IPPT20241011, UPC CFI, LD Munich, SES-imagotag v Hanshow 
Costs for the appeal instance rejected due to failure to comply with the time limit. (R. 151 RoP, R. 320 RoP, R. 9(3) RoP). Re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP, as a lex specialis, takes precedence over Rule 9.3 (a) RoP.

IPPT20231219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
Settlement of application for preliminary measures. Only obligation to reimburse costs can at present be determined, any further claims dismissed as currently premature. A specific amount to be reimbursed has not yet been named and it has not been submitted that the costs incurred by the applicant will certainly exceed the upper limit of reimbursable costs of € 200.000, only the obligation to reimburse can be determined on the merits at present. Any further claims must therefore be dismissed as currently premature (Rule 118.5 RoP; Rule 151 RoP).