Rule 370 – Court fees

1. Court fees provided for in these Rules shall be paid in accordance with the provisions contained in this Part and the table of fees adopted by the Administrative Committee pursuant to Article 36 (3) of the Agreement (hereinafter: table of fees). The level of the Court fees with respect to inflation shall be reviewed by the Administrative Committee every two years.

2. A fixed fee shall be paid in accordance with Section I (fixed fees) of the table of fees for the following actions at the Court of First Instance:

(a) Infringement action or counterclaim concerning licenses [Rule 15, Art.32(1)(a)UPCA],

(b) Counterclaim for infringement [Rule 53],

(c) Action for declaration of non-infringement [Rule 70],

(d) Action for compensation for licence of right [Rule 80.3],

(e) Application to determine damages [Rule 132].

(f) Application for provisional measures [Rule 206.5],

(g) Application to preserve evidence [Rule 192.5],

(h) Application for an order for inspection [Rule 199.2],

(i) Application for an order to freeze assets [Rule 200.2].

3.In addition to the fixed fee a value-based fee shall be paid in accordance with Section II (value-based fees) of the table of fees for those actions at the Court of First Instance set out in paragraph 2, which exceed a value of 500,000 EUR. In the case of applications under Rule 370.2(g), (h) and (i), the value based on the same patent.

4. For the following procedures and actions at the Court of First Instance a fee shall be paid in accordance with Section III (other procedures and actions) of the table of fees adopted by the Administrative Committee:

(a) Revocation action [Rule 46],

(b) Counterclaim for revocation [Rule 26],

(c) (unused item)

(d) Action against a decision of the European Patent Office [Rule 88.3, 97.2],

(e) (unused item)

(f) (unused item)

(g) (unused item)

(h) Filing a protective letter [Rule 207.3],

(i) Application to prolong the period of a protective letter to be kept on the register [Rule.207.9],

(j) Application for rehearing [Rule 250],

(k) Application for re-establishment of rights [Rule 320.2],

(l) Application to review a case management order [Rule 333.3],

(m) Application to set aside decision by default [Rule 356.2].

(o) Application to enforce a decision [Rule 354.4],

(p) Requests under Rule 198.1,

(q) Requests under Rule 213.1.

5. For the following procedures at the Court of Appeal a fixed fee and, where applicable, a value-based fee shall be paid in accordance with Section V. of the table of fees:

(a) Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1 (a) and (b) [Rule 228],

(b) Interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 220.1(c), appeal with leave of the Court of First Instance pursuant to Rule 220.2 or allowance by the Court of Appeal pursuant to Rule 220.4 or appeal of a cost decision with leave of the Court of Appeal pursuant to Rule 221.4 [Rule 228],

(c) Application for leave to appeal against cost decision pursuant to Rule 221 [Rule 228],

(d) Request for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 220.3, [Rule 228],

(e) Application for re-establishment of rights [Rule 320.2],

(f) Application to review a case management order pursuant to Rule 220.2 [R. 333.3],

(g) Application to set aside decision by default pursuant to Rule 357 [Rule 356.2],

(h) Application for rehearing pursuant to Rule 245.2 [Rule 250].

(i) Challenge a decision to reject an appeal as inadmissible [Rule 234.1],

(j) Application for suspensive effect [Rule 223],

(k) Appeal against a decision on enforceability [Rules 354.4 and 220.2].

5a. In the case of appeals against decisions under Rule 370.2(g), (h) and (i), the value-based fee shall not apply if an infringement action is pending at the Court between the same parties and based on the same patent.

6. The assessment of the value of the relevant action in paragraphs 3 and 5 shall reflect the objective interest pursued by the filing party at the time of filing the action. In deciding on the value, the Court may in particular take into account the guidelines laid down in a decision of the Administrative Committee for this purpose.

7. If an action has more than one claimant and/or more than one defendant or if an action concerns a plurality of patents only one fixed fee and, if applicable, one value-based fee shall apply.

8. Small enterprises and micro-enterprises are required to pay only 50 % of the fees provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5 above (hereinafter: regular fees) subject to the following:

(a) In the Statement of claim or Counterclaim or in the application for a procedure or an appeal the party shall lodge with the Registry a notification in an electronic form in the language of the proceedings. In this notification the party shall provide an affirmation that he fulfils either the criteria of a “small enterprise” or a “microenterprise” as defined in Title I of the Annex to the Recommendation of the European Commission n° 2003/361 of 6 May 2003.

(b) If the requirements referred to above have not been met Rule 16.3 to .5 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

c) The Court may, of its own motion, order the party to supply further documentation including any document relating to that party’s financial resources. The application shall be dealt with by the Court as soon as practicable.

(d) The Court may, at any time, of its own motion, and after having heard the party order payment of

(i) the remainder of the regular fee, in the event that payment of 50 % of the regular fees is manifestly disproportionate and unreasonable having regard to the financial capacity of the party;

(ii) the remainder of the regular fee plus an additional 50 % of that regular fee, if the affirmation provided by the party is found to be wholly or partially incorrect. An order for the payment of an additional fee pursuant to (i) and (ii) above shall state the reasons for such order.

(e) If the additional fee is not paid within the time limit set by the Court, a decision by default against the party shall be given by the Court pursuant to Rule 355.

9. Fixed and value-based fees may be reimbursed as follows:

(a) (unused item)

(b) In case of the withdrawal of an action [Rule 265] the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by 50% if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure.

(c) If the parties have concluded their action 

(i) by way of settlement at the Centre or

(ii) by an arbitral award of the Centre 

before the closure of the interim procedure or before the date specified by the judge rapporteur in the interim conference the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by 65%. 

(d) Only one of the reimbursements referred to in paragraph 9 (a), (b) and (c) will apply per action and party. Where more than one reimbursement is applicable, the larger will be applied for each party.

(e) In exceptional cases, having regard, in particular, to the stage of the proceedings and the procedural behaviour of the party, the Court may deny or decrease the reimbursement payable according to paragraph 9 (b) and (c) of the aforementioned provisions.

10. If the amount of Court fees threatens the economic existence of a party who is not a natural person, and has presented reasonably available and plausible evidence to support that the amount of Court fees threatens its economic existence, the Court may upon request by that party, wholly or partially reimburse the fixed and value-based fee. In reaching a decision the Court shall reflect on all circumstances of the case including the procedural behaviour of the party. Before making such a decision the Court may give the other party an opportunity to be heard.

11. The party seeking reimbursement under paragraphs 9 and 10 shall lodge a reasoned Application for reimbursement to the Court. The Court shall deal with the application without delay and if satisfied that the reimbursement is appropriate shall direct the Registrar to make the payment as soon as practicable.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260109, UPC COA, Juul Labs v NJOY
Withdrawal of the appeal against revocation permitted, proceedings closed.  (Rule. 370 RoP). R. 370.9 (b) RoP has been amended from 1 January 2026, providing for reimbursement of court fees with 50 % in case of the withdrawal of an action before the closure of the written procedure instead of, as previously, 60 %. The entry into force provides that amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2026. The amendments apply only to those actions and applications filed after 31 December 2025. 

IPPT20251223, UPC COA, Lindal Dispenser v Rocep-Lusol
Joint withdrawal of appeal permitted, proceedings closed. (Rule. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of  60 % of court fees ordered - action withdrawn before proceedings concluded. (Rule. 370.9 (b)(i) RoP)
 

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tandem v Roche
Court fee 60% refunded after settlement before closure of written procedure as per R. 370.9(c)(i)  RoP

IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Harvard v Nanostring - II

Withdrawal of action and reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the submissions of a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal and a statement of response, unless a cross-appeal has been lodged. Upon expiry of the period for lodging these statements, the interim procedure begins (R. 239.1 RoP). It follows that, in the present case, the action was not withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure, but before the closure of the interim procedure. Accordingly, Harvard is entitled to a reimbursement of 40% of the Court fees it paid for the appeal pursuant to R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP, instead of 60% pursuant to R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP.

IPPT20250418, UPC CoA, Scandit v Hand Held Products
Closure of the oral procedure (R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP). Oral proceedings are concluded with the closing of the oral hearing by the presiding judge, who ensures that the action is ready for decision at the end of the oral hearing (R. 111(b) RoP, to which reference is made in R. 240 RoP on the conduct of oral proceedings before the Court of Appeal).

IPPT20250311, UPC CoA, 10x Genomics v Vizgen
60% refund of court fees after withdrawal before written procedure was completed, 20% refund of court fees  after withdrawal before the end of the oral proceedings (R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250109, UPC CoA, Dish v AYLO
Partial refund (60%) of court fees in the event of withdrawal of the appeal before the conclusion of the written proceedings. An application for reimbursement of court fees is only provided for in the cases listed in Rules 370.9 and 370.10 RoP. Just as R. 265 RoP applies by analogy in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal (…), R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP applies mutatis mutandis in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal. The Rules of Procedure do not provide for the possibility of a further refund in the event of the withdrawal of the appeal.

IPPT20241223, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno - II
The determination of the value of the action (at the time of filing the action) will be the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur during the interim procedure (R 22, 104 and 370.6 RoP)

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260227, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Irdeto v DJI

Defendant 1 to pay the fee for Counterclaim for revocation on submission of a separate counterclaim. (Rule 370.7 RoP , Rule 25 RoP). If a counterclaim for revocation is submitted on behalf of several defendants, only one court fee needs to be paid. If one of the defendants submits their own counterclaim at a later stage that defendant cannot rely on the fee already paid by other defendants.

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Withdrawal of infringement action by party consent. (Rule 265.1 RoP) Conditions for reimbursement of court fees not met. (Rule 370.9 RoP). When the Court was informed of the settlement, the oral proceedings had already been completed. (Rule 370.9(c) RoP). The termination of the proceedings did not result in significant time savings for the Court. 

IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Moderna
Discretionary order to separate counterclaim for revocation proceedings into two counterclaims, one concerning each patent. (Rule 302.1 RoP). Payment of court fees also warrants separation in counterclaims for revocation – new court fees of EUR 20,000 due. (Rule 370.4 RoP, Rule 26 RoP). Whereas in an infringement action concerning several related patents, the fact that multiple patents are involved can be taken into account for determination of the value of the action for applying the Rules on Court fees. This is not the case for counterclaims for revocation, as the court fee per counterclaim action is capped at EUR 20,000. The only way to reflect the complexity and size of the counterclaim action in view of court fees, is therefore to split the case. 

IPPT20250911, UPC CFI LD Dusseldorf, Ona Patents v Ekahau
Only 40% of court fees reimbursed as written pleadings are deemed to have been closed (R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP). Although the written proceedings had not yet been formally closed, all regular pleadings foreseen in the Rules of Procedure had already been exchanged between the parties. Based on this, the judge rapporteur raised a lot of questions and requested further documentation on 1 August 2025. This order required an in-depth examination of the matter and is comparable to an R. 103 RoP order. 

IPPT20250905, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Edwards v Sintec
Confirmation of a settlement (Art. 79 UPCA, R. 365.1 RoP). Certain parts shall be kept confidential at the request of the Parties. No reimbursement of Court fees in case of withdrawal of application for interim measures (R. 265 RoP). R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP is not applicable, either directly or analogously, to applications for interim measures. 

IPPT20290828, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
No reimbursement of Court fees in case of withdrawal of application for interim measures (R. 265 RoP). (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP) is not applicable, either directly or analogously, to applications for interim measures. According to its wording, the provision refers only to actions. Furthermore, the procedural stages referred to in R. 370. 9(b) VerfO are not applicable in proceedings concerning applications for interim measures. In particular, oral hearings do not take place in every case. Furthermore, the court fee for applications for interim measures is already significantly reduced compared to that for legal actions. Against this background, no further reductions are provided for or required.

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Nutricia v Nestlé
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation by party consent (R. 265 RoP). The amount of the infringement action is set at € 250,000. The amount of the counterclaim for revocation is set at € 500,000.  (R. 370.6 RoP)

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. (R. 370 RoP) 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. 

IPPT20250724, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE v Samsung
Value in dispute for FRAND counterclaim higher than value in dispute of infringement action (R. 370 RoP). A FRAND counterclaim is not a mere defence to the infringement action and its value in dispute therefore is not limited to the value in dispute of the infringement action. Since the Defendant 1, by filing a FRAND counterclaim that is not limited to the patent-in-suit, is seeking a licence agreement that goes beyond the patent-in-suit and that corresponds to its understanding of FRAND, it is not disadvantaged by having to pay fees that exceed the fees for the infringement action.

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Bruker
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pursuant to settlement (R. 265.1 RoP). Only 40% instead of 60% reimbursement of Court fees (€ 30.400 and € 8.000, respectively) due to the parties having conducted the proceedings outstanding intensively. (R. 370.9(e) RoP). Application for compensation for injury caused by provisional measures requires payment of court fees (R. 213.2 RoP). The legal basis for this fees are Rules 370.2(e), 132 RoP ("Fee for the Application for the determination of damages") RoP. The expression "damages" used in Rule 132 RoP (Chapter 4: Procedure for the determination of damages and compensation) shall be deemed to include compensation according to Rule 213.2 ROP. This is explicitly stated in Rule 125 RoP (sentences 2 and 3). Defendants are reminded that the UPC is not based on the principle of free proceedings, but on the idea that the party who initiates proceedings and thus an activity of the Court by filing a statement of claim or an application must pay fees (Article 36(3) UPCA, Article 70 UPCA). 60% of the court fees (€ 151.800) will be reimbursed as action is withdrawn before closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP) 

IPPT20250708, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
Value of the dispute for the infringement action and the revocation action set at € 2 million (R. 370.6 RoP).

IPPT20250630, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Tandem
No refund of court fees following settlement after the conclusion of the oral proceedings (R. 370.9(c) RoP) It follows from R. 111(b) RoP, according to which the presiding judge must ensure that the proceedings are ready for decision at the end of the oral hearing, that the oral proceedings are also concluded when the oral hearing ends (UPC_CoA_520/2024, order of 18 April 2025, para. 15 – Scandit v. Hand Held)

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE v Samsung
Value in dispute for FRAND counterclaim preliminary increased up from € 4 million (R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Samsung v ZTE
Value of infringement action set at € 4 million on a preliminary basis (instead of € 500.000) (R. 22.1 RoP, R. 370.6 RoP). The value of the dispute is largely underestimated taking into consideration the commercial background of the infringement action attacking all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the opponent and the general FRAND rate discussion between the parties on which the injunctive relief sought will have economic bearing

IPPT20250429, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ArcelorMitall v Xpeng

Withdrawal permitted (R. 265 RoP,). In the present case, ArcelorMittal’s request for withdrawal is submitted before the close of the written procedure and even before the Defendants filed any brief on the merits. In light of the parties’ applications, the Court sees no objection to permitting the withdrawal in the case at hand. The Court notes that the Claimant has declared not to seek any decision on costs, except concerning the reimbursement of the Court fees under R. 370.9(b) already paid. In the case at hand, only ArcelorMittal has made an application for partial reimbursement

IPPT20250328, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Nichia v Endrich
Confirmation of settlement (R. 365 RoP). Registrar is to reimburse of the plaintiff 60% of the court fees (R. 370(9)(c)(i) RoP)

IPPT20250321, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP) before closure of the written procedure. No cost decision requested. 60% reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.9 RoP)

IPPT20250318, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 40% of court fees (R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250227, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Fapa Vital v Valentis Baltic
Withdrawal of application for provisional measures by party consent (R. 265 RoP) and reimbursement of Court fees (R. 370.9 RoP by analogy)

IPPT20250225, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Reimbursement of 40% instead of 60% of court fees after withdrawal (R. 370.9 RoP). Left open whether formal notification by the court of the conclusion of the written proceedings is decisive or whether it is sufficient that all pleadings have already been exchanged in accordance with Rule 12.1 RoP and that, in this respect, the written proceedings are de facto concluded (as in this case) (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP) (see also Local Chamber Mannheim, order of 4 February 2025, UPC_CFI_223/2023). The decisive factor in the proceedings to be assessed here is that this is an extremely complex patent infringement dispute, which the parties have also conducted very intensively until the withdrawal of the action and the counterclaims and which has therefore caused an exceptionally high, far above average amount of work on the part of the court (R. 370.9(e) RoP). 
 

IPPT20250204, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 40% (instead of 60%) of court fees  after closure of the written procedure (R. 370.9(b) RoP) The fact that the written procedure was not formally completed by clicking the button provided on the CMS workflow does not change this as the procedure was announced to have been completed months earlier.

IPPT20250203, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 20% of court fees (R. 370.9(b) RoP)

IPPT20250203, UPC LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Oppo
Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). No reimbursement of court costs as the application was made after the final decision closing the oral proceedings (R. 370.9(b) RoP)

IPPT20250129, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Dexcom
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; no need for a cost decision, 20% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Qualcomm v Shenzen
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Realtek
Withdrawal of request for provisional measures (R. 205 RoP, R. 265 RoP). By analogy reimbursement of 20% of court fees (R. 370.9 RoP)

IPPT20250124, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Withdrawal of counterclaim for revocation and counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Analogous application of Rule 370 RoP to a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer. The UPC is not based on the principle of free proceedings, but the parties contribute for the costs incurred by the Court (Article 36(3) and 70 UPCA) 

IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear II
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Netgear v Huawei
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation; each party shall bear its own costs, 40% of court fees reimbursed  (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Withdrawal parties bearing own costs (R. 265 RoP). No partial reimbursement of court fees applied for (R. 370.11 RoP). The decision follows the parties’ jointly expressed will. Insofar as R. 265.2 (c) RoP requires a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 RoP, the decision takes into account the agreement reached between the parties. At present, no party has filed an application for a partial reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.11 RoP in conjunction with R. 370.9 (b) (i) RoP), so that no such order could be made.

IPPT20250107, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, DexCom v Abbott
Withdrawal of infringement and revocation actions, no cost decision, 60% reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). The decision takes into account the agreement reached between the parties. 

IPPT20241227, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno - I
An order granting security for costs (R. 158 RoP) can be revoked or amended by the Court if there is a change in the factual circumstances underlying the order. Granting this opportunity to the parties, even in absence of a specific and direct legal provision, is necessary to render the measure consistent with its purpose, namely to address the risk of non-recovery or significant difficulty in recovering costs of the proceedings. Security amount for costs determined by the “value” of the action which is to reflect the “objective interest pursued” by the claimant at the time of the filing of the action (R. 370.6 RoP) and any subsequent modifications – like a subsequent reduction of damages – is of no relevance

IPPT20241224, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Withdrawal pursuant to settlement after written proceedings: agreed that each party bears its own costs, 40% refund of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP)

IPPT20241223, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO
Withdrawal after settlement of infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation (R. 265 RoP). Each party bearing its own costs. Each party gets a fee refund of 40 per cent in accordance with R. 370.9(b)(ii) RoP. 

IPPT20241213, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ICPillar v ARM
Withdrawal of infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation permitted (R. 265 RoP).The Court fees shall be reimbursed by the Court to the parties by 40% pursuant to R. 370.9 (b) and (e) RoP, i.e. the amount of 44,400 euros to ICPillar and the amount of 8,000 euros to ARM.

IPPT20241211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Withdrawal of the actions in accordance with unanimous wishes of the parties (R. 265 RoP). Decision on pro-rata reimbursement of court costs (R. 370.11 RoP)

IPPT20241115, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips v Shenzen Yunding
Withdrawal of application for provisional measures: 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 206 RoP), R. 370(9)(b)(i) RoP). Withdrawal of application for provisional measures one day after application was filed (i.e., before closure of written procedure). Application of R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP by analogy 

IPPT20241024, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Qualcomm
No reimbursement of court fees following interlocutory rectification by EPO of contested decision after Court order that there was no reason for full or partial reimbursement of the fee for the action (R. 370 RoP, R. 91 RoP, R. 333 RoP, R. 220 RoP). Even if it is foreseen by R. 370.11 RoP that an application may also be filed at a later stage, it remains in the present case that the Court of First Instance cannot review its previous order on the same subject-matter and decide in a different way, considering – should it be a case management order – that the decision was taken by a single judge (without possible panel review) and the Order can be appealed.

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.

IPPT20240926, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Withdrawal of action pursuant to party agreement with pro rata reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP).

IPPT20240809, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aiko Energy v Maxeon Solar
Withdrawal of Statement for Revocation before being served has the same legal effect as if it had not been lodged at all. No legitimate interest for the Defendant to participate (Rule 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 60% of Court fees (Rule 370(9) RoP).

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Semiconductor v Amazon II

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Semiconductor v Amazon
Withdrawal because of out-of-court settlement (Rule 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 60% of  Court fees (Rule 370 RoP)

IPPT20240726, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Cane v France Development Electronique
Settlement confirmed by the Court; request to publish a redacted version granted (Rule 11 RoP, Rule 365 RoP). Application to withdraw exhibits by party agreement from the proceedings granted. Reimbursement of 60% of Court fees (Rule 370(9) RoP). Case was assigned to a single judge at the request of the parties, and the settlement was reached on 20 June 2024, before the close of the written procedure. 

IPPT20240711, UPC CFI, LD Munich, KrausMaffei v Troester
Withdrawal of claim after settlement – 20% of court fees refunded (Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP). The oral proceedings were not yet concluded even after the oral hearing on 16/04/2024. Proceedings not yet ready for a decision.

IPPT20240703, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Abbott v Sibio
Confirmation of settlement reached between the parties (Article 79 UPCA, Rule 365 RoP). Reimbursement of 20% of the court fees paid in connection with the application for provisional measures (Rule 370 RoP). Such reimbursement is not precluded by the fact that the present proceedings concern an Application for provisional measures. Although the wording of the English version of Rule 370.9 (c) RoP speaks of an “action”, the German version is more sophisticated (“Verfahren”). The same applies to the French version (“affaire”). In addition, the possibility of partial reimbursement of court fees is intended to motivate the parties to end the proceedings as early as possible by concluding a settlement. This intention is present not only in proceedings on the merits but also in an Application for provisional measures. The fact that R. 370.9 (c) (ii) RoP also provides for an amount for the interim procedure does not justify a different assessment. 

IPPT20240516, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Stäubli Tec-Systems
If there is no need to adjudicate (R. 360 RoP) the legal costs shall be determined by the full panel (R. 118.5 RoP). In case of a patent waiver Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP, providing for a 60% refund of Court fees, applies by analogy.

IPPT20240501, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Keestrack v Geha Laverman
Withdrawal of proceedings pursuant to a settlement (Rule 265 RoP, Rule 11 RoP). Restitution of part of the court fee appropriate. With the case being terminated at an early stage, i.e. after the issuance of the summons and before the filing of a reply by the respondent, and therefore before the 'written proceedings' are concluded, 60% of the court fees paid will be refunded (Rule 370.9(b) RoP). 

IPPT20230908, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Ocado v Autostore

Withdrawal of action prior to final decision because of settlement (Rule 265 RoP). Since the action has been withdrawn even before all defendants formally have been served the statement of claim, the Claimant shall be reimbursed court fees by 60 % of EUR 31.000, which is EUR 18.600. (Rule 370(9) RoP).

IPPT20230626, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ocado v Autostore

Withdrawal of action prior to final decision because of settlement (Rule 265 RoP). Ocado reimbursed the amount of EUR 37,800, equal to 60% of the Court fees paid by it in these proceedings (Rule 370(9) RoP).