Article 14

Member States shall ensure that reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the unsuccessful party, unless equity does not allow this.

UPC Case Law

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.  

IPPT20241004, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Successful party in case of disposal of an action following a cease-and-desist-letter undertaking by the defendant (Article 69 UPCA, R. 360 RoP, Article 14 Enforcement Directive) must be determined on the basis of the specific characteristics of the case and in particular the requests of the parties and the content of the undertaking. As a general rule, the claimant must be considered the successful party. Grounds of equity may require that the claimant bear the costs where, in short, the claimant caused unnecessary costs by bringing proceedings against a defendant which did not give cause for action. No reasonable doubt that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Art. 69(1) UPCA is in conformity with Art. 14 of Directive 2004/48. The Court of Appeal will therefore not refer a question to the CJEU. Meril must be regarded as the unsuccessful party. Through Meril’s cease-and-desist undertaking, Edwards achieved the main purpose of its action for provisional measures, namely that Meril cease marketing products which Edwards considers to be covered by the patent at issue. Meril thus effectively placed itself in the position of the unsuccessful party.