Rule 151 – Start of proceedings for cost decision

Print this page

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

 

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 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:

 

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).