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).

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 [Rule 15],

(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].

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.

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) Application for provisional measures [Rule 206.5],

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

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

(f) Application for an order for inspection [Rule199.2],

(g) Application for an order to freeze assets [Rule 200.2],

(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].

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 IV. 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].

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 60 % 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 “micro-enterprise” 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 60 % 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) If the action is heard by a single judge [Rule 345.6.] the party liable for the Court fee will be reimbursed by 25 % of the fee.

(b) In case of the withdrawal of an action [Rule 265] the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by:

(i) 60 % if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the written procedure

(ii) 40 % if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure 

(iii) 20 % if the action is withdrawn before the closure of the oral procedure

(c) If the parties have concluded their action by way of settlement the party liable for the Court fees will be reimbursed by:

(i) 60 % if the action is settled before the closure of the written procedure

(ii) 40 % if the action is settled before the closure of the interim procedure

(iii) 20 % if the action is settled before the closure of the oral procedure

(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

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

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 e counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer

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).