Rule 156 – Further procedure

1. The judge-rapporteur may request the applicant to provide written evidence of all costs requested in Rule 151(d). The judge-rapporteur shall allow the unsuccessful party an opportunity to comment in writing on the costs requested including any item of costs that should be apportioned or borne by each party in accordance with Article 69(1) to (3) of the Agreement.

2. The judge-rapporteur shall decide in writing on the costs to be awarded or apportioned in accordance with Article 69(1) to (3) of the Agreement.

3. The costs shall be paid within the period ordered by the judge-rapporteur.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250221, UPC CoA, Hanshow v Vusion

The application for leave to appeal against a cost decision is considered to be a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal (R. 221 RoP, R. 224 RoP). An application for the determination of costs is a summary procedure, decided in the first instance by the judge-rapporteur (R. 156.2 RoP) and in appeal by the standing judge (R. 221.4 RoP). The application always requires leave to appeal and there is no obligation for the standing judge to hear the other party before allowing the appeal. The application for leave to appeal under R. 221 RoP must already set out the grounds on which the appeal is based. Court fees in case of a granted leave to appeal against cost decision. If a party applies for permission to appeal against a decision on costs, it pays a court fee of € 1.500. If the appeal is allowed, the fee originally paid will not apply, but a fee of € 3.000 will be charged for an appeal against a costs order

Court of First Instance

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).

IPPT20251015, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v EOFLow
Party requesting cost compensation must indicate exactly which cost item it is requesting payment for to allow the judge to carry out the review provided for in Rule 156 RoP  and Article 69 UPCA. Party must make a choice: submit the costs to the Court or keep them confidential and waive payment. Obscured costs cannot be settled. 

IPPT20250725, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Cost decision for an amount of € 41.656,64. (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156.1 RoP). Late filed request to increase the recoverable costs ceiling. Rule 104(j) RoP  and the Ceilings Decision stipulate that a request for an increase must be assessed no later than the closing of the interim conference. May not apply to the defendant if they are only informed of the actual representation costs claimed by the claimant during the course of the cost proceedings. Costs claimed are ‘facts’, for which – if disputed – the claimant needs to provide evidence (Article 54 UPCA, R. 172.1 RoP). Same standard of proof. If the ‘facts’ (‘costs’) are disputed by the defendant and if the claimant has evidence to support the ‘facts’ (‘costs’) presented, the claimant is obliged to provide such evidence. Contrary to what R 156.1 RoP suggests, such evidence does not only have to be submitted if the Court requests it. R. 156.1. RoP merely states that the Judge-Rapporteur has the power (‘may’) to have written evidence submitted to him and does not relieve the claimant of his burden of proof as set out in Article 54 UPCA and R. 172.1. RoP. The Court may apply the ceiling (as a safety net) with regard to recoverable representation costs if the circumstances of the case justify this. Translation costs (including translations made in the light of the defence and communication between clients and their legal representatives (‘representatives’) (or translations concerning decisions taken in the language of the proceedings) as well as the travel and accommodation costs of the legal representatives (‘representatives’) fall under representation costs. R. 152.1. RoP should be interpreted broadly in this sense.

IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Kaldewei v Bette

Cost decision  (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156 RoP): The defendant shall reimburse the claimant for costs totaling € 84,950.00 

IPPT20250509, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat

Cost decision (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156 RoP, ): € 77.064 (instead of requested € 136.756.) The maximum limit, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, can only be reached in limited situations, for example due to the complexity of the issues involved, the number of patents examined, the parties involved or the use of several languages. As stated in previous decisions of the Court, the costs actually incurred by the necessary measure must not be disproportionate in terms of their specific amount. In particular, they must not be disproportionate to the amount in dispute, the importance of the issue, the degree of difficulty and complexity of the legal and factual issues relevant to the decision, and the prospects of success of the measure involving the costs

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
No legal basis for interest on reimbursable legal costs and other expenses (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156.2 RoP). A corresponding application of Rules 125 and 131 RoP, which govern the procedure for setting damages and compensation and expressly provide for interest, is ruled out.

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
Parties may not unilaterally submit written comments on opposing arguments absent express authorization from the Court (R. 156 RoP, R. 9 RoP). The Court has the discretionary power to allow the further exchange of written pleadings if it deems appropriate, if not essential, to hear from one or each party before rendering its decision on the matter.