Article 69

Legal costs

1.   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 requires otherwise, up to a ceiling set in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

2.   Where a party succeeds only in part or in exceptional circumstances, the Court may order that costs be apportioned equitably or that the parties bear their own costs.

3.   A party should bear any unnecessary costs it has caused the Court or another party.

4.   At the request of the defendant, the Court may order the applicant to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant which the applicant may be liable to bear, in particular in the cases referred to in Articles 59 to 62.

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260428, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Application to revoke security for costs order rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 336 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA does not only apply to cases referred to in Art. 59-62 UPCA. […]. Nor does Art. 69(4) UPCA suggest that the requirement to provide security for costs should be the exception. The purpose of security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA is to protect the opposing party from difficulties in enforcing a claim for reimbursement of costs. There are no concerns regarding the security order under the Enforcement Directive. No basis for referral to CJEU (Article 21 UPCA). No extension of deadline for providing security (R. 9.3 RoP).

IPPT20260414, UPC CoA, La Siddhi v Athena Pharma

Request for suspensive effect of security of costs order rejected for lack of exceptional circumstances. (Article 74 UPCA, Article 69 (4) UPCA, Rule 223 RoP, Rule 158 RoP). The applicant did not demonstrate: Manifest error in the decision,Irreversible harm or Violation of fundamental procedural rights.

IPPT20260407, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
€ 600.000 security for costs to be provided by appellant Suinno (Article 69(4) UPCA). Failure to pay previously awarded costs supports the conclusion that recovery of future costs is at risk. Lack of evidence of sufficient financial resources reinforces the need for security for costs. A counterclaim for revocation remains admissible and autonomous even after the infringement action ends, and does not prevent a request for security. 

IPPT20260218, UPC CoA, Syntorr v Arthrex
Order for security for costs set aside in light of litigation insurance (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 RoP) . Careful consideration of the terms of a litigation insurance policy is of particular relevance to demonstrate the financial position of party. The insurance obtained by the appellant provided adequate security - no obligation to provide further security in the form of a deposit or a bank guarantee. Appelant sufficiently substantiated the validity and the terms of the insurance policy in first instance proceedings. 

IPPT20260204, UPC CoA, EOFlow v Insulet
Appeal against order imposing penalties inadmissible. (Article 69 UPCA,  Art. 82(4) UPCA, Rule 354.4 RoP). The Legal remedy against a cost order for penalty payments (Article 69 UPCA) is an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP and not an application for leave to appeal against cost decisions according to R. 221 RoP. (Rule 220.2 RoP, Rule 221 RoP). Orders on costs, which concern both, the question of who bears the costs and the amount - are subject to the same legal remedy as the decision on the merits. 

IPPT20260203, UPC CoA, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Security for costs in appeal released following settlement (Article 69(4) UPCA, Article 79 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). R.352.2 RoP, which applies to security for enforcement, applied by way of analogy. This provision applies to security for enforcement but should be applied by way of analogy in the present case. There is a reason to do so given the conclusion of the proceedings and the settlement between the parties.

IPPT20251219, UPC CoA, Hefei v Grundfos
€ 75.000 security for costs against Chinese domiciled applicant. Even if the party is solvent, enforcement difficulties alone justify security. An order for security for costs can only be made against applicants, not in their favour (Article 69(4) UPCA). An ‘applicant’ is the party who initiates legal proceedings by filing an application. This means that, at first instance, an application by the claimant for an order to provide security for costs is not admissible. Nor does the infringement claimant’s right to make such an application arise from the fact that the defendant has brought a counterclaim for annulment. Such a counterclaim for annulment is a direct consequence of the infringement action brought by the claimant. An order requiring the defendant and counter-claimant to provide security for costs would unduly impair the defendant’s ability to defend himself. The party entitled to make an application under Art. 69(4) UPCA in the appeal proceedings is the respondent. This generally also applies where the respondent on appeal is the claimant. If both parties lodge an appeal, each party may only require security for costs in respect of the other party’s appeal costs. This also applies in the case of a cross-appeal. An exception applies where the defendant in the appeal proceedings rightly asserts a manifest error in the first-instance decision. In such cases, only the defendant may require security for costs for the appeal proceedings.

IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
Interim award of costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP) As a general rule, the successful party is not entitled to an interim reimbursement of representation costs of more than 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs. To what extent the successful party is entitled to a reimbursement of representation costs is to be determined in the proceedings for a cost decision. In general, the Court may assume that the successful party will be entitled to 50% of the applicable ceiling and may order reimbursement of that amount by means of an interim award, unless there are clear indications that the successful party in fact incurred fewer representation costs or that 50% of the applicable ceiling is more than what would be reasonable or proportionate in the particular circumstances of the case. At the same time, as a general rule, the Court cannot assume that the successful party is entitled to more than 50% of the applicable ceiling before the conclusion of the cost proceedings according to Chapter 5 of Part 1 RoP. An exception may apply if parties have submitted and discussed cost specifications during the proceedings or have agreed on the costs to be reimbursed.

IPPT20251030, UPC CoA, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Security for costs already awarded in Milan LD cost decision for an amount of € 77,064.65 dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). The fact that, following this award of costs, Oerlikon has not yet received the corresponding payment is a matter of enforcement of the Costs decision, and does not justify a request for security of costs in proceedings before the Court of Appeal with regard to these costs already awarded. Furthermore, ordering a security for costs against Bhagat in relation to the costs incurred by Oerlikon in the CFI proceedings would, unlike the costs incurred in the appeal initiated by Bhagat, lead to providing a security for costs against the defendant in an infringement action, which is contrary to the position of this Court. Security for costs incurred by Oerlikon in the appeal proceedings awarded at 50% of the ceiling for recoverable at € 19.000.There are several facts and arguments raised by Oerlikon, and not denied by Bhagat, which give rise to a legitimate and real concern that an order for costs in the appeal may not be recoverable if the Court of Appeal decided to reject the appeal and to order Bhagat to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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.  

IPPT20250709, UPC CoA, Chint v JingAo
Security for costs granted against claimant residing in China (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). The lack of experience in enforcing UPC cost decisions in China, does not rule out the possibility that enforcement will be burdensome. The fact that China is outside the EU is a relevant factor. A history of litigants having difficulties enforcing judgments in China is an important factor. The fact that China has a formal procedure to enforce judgments does not detract from the fact that this procedure can, in practice, be burdensome.

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, Tiroler v SSAB
Determination of costs following a withdrawal of an action is subject to the ordinary rules (R. 265 RoP, R. 150 et seq. RoP). The legal review on appeal of a decision as per art. R. 150 RoP is limited to a marginal review of whether the judge-rapporteur’s assessment of costs results in the successful party being compensated for legal costs and other expenses beyond what is reasonable and proportionate, or otherwise deviates from the principles inherent in Art. 69(1) UPCA, as specified in R. 150 et seq. RoP

IPPT20250703, UPC CoA, OrthoApnea
Action withdrawn by appellant with consent. Appellant to pay costs of the appeal as the unsuccesfull party (R. 265 RoP), Article 69(1) UPCA)

IPPT20250626, UPC CoA, Easee v Visibly
Suspensive effect granted for appeal from order to provide security by defendant in infringement action because of manifest error (R. 223 RoP, Article 69(4) UPCA). After the impugned order was issued, in other proceedings, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Art.69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for an order to provide a security for costs at the request of a claimant in an infringement action and that a security for costs may also not be requested by such claimant in response to a counterclaim lodged by the defendant in the infringement action (UPC_CoA_393/2025, APL_20694/2025 AorticLab vs. Emboline). As it is clear from the reasons of the AorticLab vs. Emboline order, the principles apply regardless of the circumstances of the individual case. 

IPPT20250626, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon
Request rejected to release € 56.000 security placed by Ballinno (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The evidence presented by Ballinno on the balance on its bank account is insufficient since in the event of a procedural loss, Ballinno must be able to cover both its own litigation costs – which may well exceed the applicable ceiling – and that of the other parties. The provision of security does not hamper Ballinno’s access to justice. The disposal of an action under R. 360 RoP following a withdrawal does not necessarily preclude the application of the principle  that the unsuccessful party must bear the costs (Article 69(1) UPCA). Under the circumstances of the case it is not necessary to examine the merits of the case to determine who the successful part is (one party unsuccessful in both instances)

IPPT20250620, UPC CoA, AorticLab v Emboline
Security for costs can only be requested by defendants  (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA contains deliberate language to restrict the possibility to request a security order to a defendant. R. 158 RoP cannot be interpreted as merely extending the Court’s powers beyond those explicitly provided in Article 69(4) UPCA. A legal basis for the possibility for a claimant requesting an order that the defendant provide security for costs cannot be found in the Enforcement Directive. The claimant in an infringement action also cannot request security for costs in the counterclaim for revocation action, as the counterclaim is intrinsically linked to the infringement action and defences can only be brought by way of a counterclaim for revocation.

IPPT20250606, UPC CoA, Hanshow v VusionGroup
No reimbursement of additional costs attributable to cost assessment proceedings as such (R. 150 RoP, Article 69(3) UPCA). Even if a party is successful in proceedings for the assessment of costs under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure, it must generally bear its own costs incurred in the cost proceedings. In exceptional cases, however, a party may be ordered to bear unnecessary costs it has caused to the Court or to another party (Article 69(3) UPCA).

IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Harvard v Nanostring - I

Withdrawal of appeal by party consent without decision on costs (R. 265 RoP), following which the order to provide a security becomes devoid of purpose and security is released (Article 69.4 UPCA, R. 158 RoP)

IPPT20250512, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon
Cost Allocation (Article 69 UPCA, R. 360 RoP). Disposal of an action pursuant to R. 360 RoP can include a decision on who shall bear the costs; the review can be marginal. Unsuccessful party: party that withdraws the main requests and took the inherent risk in its procedural strategy that the urgent interest in the requests fell away before a final order was rendered  must considered as the unsuccessful party and consequently be held to bear the costs of the proceedings. An exception to this may apply where it has been established that the impugned order is based on manifest errors. Where a party, on the other hand, withdrew its requests for lack of urgent interest before a (final) order in the action was rendered, caused by circumstances it could not reasonably have foreseen, and not due to a materialisation of an inherent and foreseeable risk of a deliberate procedural strategy, equity may require a different allocation of costs.

IPPT20250430, UPC CoA, Insulet v EOFlow
Cost decision in proceedings for provisional measures (Article 69 UPCA). If one party is partially unsuccessful, the costs do not always have to be apportioned proportionately. In particular, where a party's unsuccessful claim was relatively minor and did not cause further costs, its entire costs may be awarded against the other party. 

IPPT20250326, UPC CoA, Stäubli Tec-Systems
Equity may require prevailing claimant to bear the costs of a revocation action in which the patent holder immediately surrenders the patent at the beginning of the proceedings and the patent holder was not previously contacted (Article 69(1) UPCA). The risk of an opt-out prompted by the contact before filing the action does not inevitably speak against these cost consequences.

IPPT20250304, UPC CoA, Sumi Agro v Syngenta
Provisional injunction confirmed. Cost decision in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures (Article 69 UPCA) It concludes the action. 

IPPT20250120, UPC CoA, SharkNinja v Dyson
Inadmissible application for cost decision following decision on provisional measures. An application for a decision for costs can only be lodged within one month after the service of the decision on the merits. (R. 150 RoP). If the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits of the case pursuant to R. 213 RoP, for example, if the application for provisional measures was unsuccessful, R. 150 and 151 RoP do not appear to be applicable, at least on a strict literal reading. However, to fulfil the objectives of Art. 69(1-3) UPCA that the successful party can have its reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses compensated by the unsuccessful party, an application of R. 150 and 151 RoP mutatis mutandis would be justified in that situation.

IPPT20241217, UPC CoA, Curio v 10x
Application to the standing judge for suspensive effect of an appeal because of extreme urgency (R. 223.4 RoP) rejected regarding an order to the defendant to provide € 200.000 security for legal costs of the claimant (R. 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA). Within the discretion of the standing judge to dismiss the application without hearing the respondent. Extreme urgency under R 223.4 RoP is clearly distinct from, and does not require the impugned order to be “manifestly wrong”, but the Court is not convinced that the CFI was manifestly wrong and whether the CFI has given a correct interpretation of R 158 RoP regarding Art. 69(4) UPCA will have to be decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of the appeal proceedings.

IPPT20241129, UPC CoA, Aarke v Sodastream
Criteria for security for costs of a party (R. 158 RoP) Failing any guarantees or other special circumstances […] it is not relevant whether the claimant belongs to a - financially sound - group of companies. It is only the financial position of the claimant itself that is relevant. Whether a claimant is willing to reimburse the defendant if a cost order would be issued in favour of the defendant is not relevant either. The relevant criterion is whether, if that were the case, enforcement would be possible without undue burden. Irrelevant whether a cost order in favour of the defendant is to be expected. The Court should not engage in evaluating the likelihood of the outcome of the case when deciding on a request for security for costs. Not required that it is proven that enforcement is impossible. It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome.

IPPT20241127, UPC CoA, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Discretionary review of an order of judge-rapporteur on security for costs and denying leave to appeal granted because of an access to justice issue which has not yet been decided and which the Court of Appeal can raise of its own motion (R. 220.3 RoP, Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 333 RoP)

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.

IPPT20240924, UPC CoA, Guangdong OPPO v Panasonic
Decision on reimbursement of legal costs in the final decision (Article 69 UPCA, R. 242 RoP, R. 118.5 RoP). R.242.1 RoP is to be interpreted to mean that if the decision of the Court of Appeal is not a final order or decision concluding an action, the Court of Appeal, in the case at hand, will not issue an order for costs in respect of the proceedings at first instance and at appeal. 

IPPT20240917, UPC CoA, Audi v NST
Security for legal costs and expenses (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP) requires a legitimate and real concern to be substantiated and proven by the party making the request, while the relative financial position of the parties is not as such a criterion, especially where the (limited) level of funding provided to a special purpose patent enforcement entity is a deliberate business decision. 

IPPT20240917, UPC CoA, Volkswagen v NST.

Order set aside. NST as Claimant to provide security for costs to Volkswagen. (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). Costs to be ordered when the financial position of the claimant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be enforceable. Burden of substantiation and proof why an order for security for costs is appropriate is on the defendant making the request. Once reasons and facts have been presented in a credible manner, it is up to the claimant to challenge these in a substantiated manner.‘Precise evidence’ that NST ‘is or will be insolvent at the time a cost decision will be rendered’ is too high as standard of proof. NST’s argument that an SME should not be required to provide security for costs in favour of a massive automotive company such as Volkswagen is rejected. The relative financial position of the claimant as compared to that of the defendant is not as such a criterion under R.158 RoP. Existence of a patent portfolio does not prevent a legitimate and real concern that an order for costs may not be recoverable.

IPPT20240826, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon Sports
Adequate security for legal costs and other expenses equally available in appeal (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP, Rule 222(2) RoP). Ballinno ordered to provide security for legal costs in appeal in the (total) amount of € 25.000.  The provision of security for costs does not hamper access to justice. (Article 47 EU Charter)

IPPT20240417, UPC CoA, Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics
Change of language of the proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness: all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account (Article 49 UPCA, Rule 323 RoP). No decision on the reimbursement of legal costs will be made in this appeal, since this order of the Court of Appeal is not a final order or decision, i.e. not an order or decision concluding the proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance. (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 118 RoP, Rule 242 RoP

IPPT20240403, UPC CoA, Juul Labs v NJOY Netherlands
Appeal and the appellant’s request to set aside the orders of the Court of First Instance to rectify the name of the defendant (“Juul Labs, Inc”) to read “Juul Labs International, Inc.” rejected [Rule 9 RoP]. No decision on costs. Rule 242.1 RoP is to be interpreted to mean that if the decision of the Court of Appeal is not a final order or decision concluding an action, the Court of Appeal, in the case at hand, will not issue an order for costs in respect of the proceedings at first instance and at appeal. However, the outcome of the appeal must be considered when, in the final decision on the action at hand, the Court determines whether and to what extent a party must bear the costs of the other party because it was unsuccessful within the meaning of Article 69 UPCA.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260422, UPC CFI CD Paris, Huntsman v BASF
Costs to be shared as claimants were not entirely successful in their claims (Article 69 UPCA). As the defendant has not submitted a claim for costs, the Court issues an order, on the basis of Article 76 of the UPCA, only on the costs of the claimants. 

IPPT20260313, UPC CFI CD Milan, La Siddhi v Athena
Order to provide security for costs of € 75.000 (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Once the defendant substantiates the risk, the claimant must rebut it with concrete evidence. Low net assets created doubt about ability to pay costs. The claimant did not properly contest the financial evidence. SME status does not exempt a party from security orders and the SME status must be substantiated.

IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Leap Tools v Wizart

Request for security for costs dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). Simple reference to Claimant’s registered office in Canada does not demonstrate that a cost order would be unduly burdensome. Claimant’s annual revenue estimated to be less than EUR 20 million in 2025 , is not so low that one could assume, without further explanation, that a cost order may not be enforceable.

IPPT20260210, UPC CFI, LD Milan, AWM v Progress Maschinen
Appeal against a CFI upholding a counterclaim for revocation has automatic suspensive effect. Stay of proceedings ordered. (Article 74(2) UPCA, Rule. 150 RoP, Rule 295 RoP). The automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety, including the parts relating to legal costs. (Article 69 UPCA) Interpretation that “the automatic suspensive effect provided by law would be limited solely to the provisions of the decision relating strictly to the validity of the patent” introduces an arbitrary limitation that would exclude any suspensive effect relating to other points of the decision, including those relating to legal costs not contemplated by the provision’s wording. The court deviates from the decision in  CD Paris, dated 29.4.2025 (Roche Diabetes v Tandem Diabetes), the aforementioned decision did not consider the applicability of Article 74(2) UPCA at all. And refers to order of LD Brussels dated 2.5.2025 ( OrthoApnea ) where the Court determined that it was permissible to stay the proceedings for cost determination, even in cases where the automatic and mandatory suspensive effect stipulated in Article 74(2) UPCA does not apply.
  

IPPT20260202, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, 10xGenomics v Curio Bioscience
Cost decision on the reimbursability of costs in PI proceedings (Article. 69 UPCA, Rule. 150, 151, 152 RoP). Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately. The decision on the reimbursability of costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. The ceilings for PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately – follow up to Decision of Ortovox v Mammut). If the costs in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately within a ceiling that applies specifically to those proceedings, the costs of both the PI proceedings and the main proceedings are capped by the applicable ceiling. It is inadmissible to mix the costs of the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits or to shift them from one proceeding to the other, even if the results of the PI proceedings may be used in subsequent proceedings on the merits. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that it remains within the ceiling during the PI proceedings. Compensation for representation costs (Rule. 152.2 RoP). For partial success, the applicable ceiling shall correspond to the proportion of success of the party seeking cost recovery. Accordingly, First, the reimbursable representation costs must be determined based on the quota set by the Court in accordance with Art. 69 UPCA in conjunction with R. 118.5 RoP. Second, the ceiling, which is reduced in accordance with the quota set by the Court, must be applied. 

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, & Article 78 UPCA . Claimant missed the application deadline (Rule 151 RoP).  Dissenting opinion of Judge Brinkman disagreeing with the narrow interpretation of the regulations.  (Article. 36 of The Statute of The Unified Patent Court, Article 78,  Article 69 UPCA ) . The application to be inadmissible due to a lack of legal interest – application should be admitted in the cost proceedings, thus making re-establishment of rights unnecessary and devoid of legal interest. It is clear from the Rules of Procedure and Article 69 UPCA that a “cost decision” means a decision on the reimbursement of costs. However, in this case the Claimant is not requesting a cost decision, they are only requesting that their 40% portion be used as a deduction from the amount they have to pay to the Defendants 

IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Emboline v AorticLab
Admissible counterclaim for revocation subject to intra-procedural condition (only if the patent is found infringed) (R. 25 RoP).  If, in accordance with the counterclaimant’s request, no decision is made on the Counterclaim, the counterclaimant must bear the costs for the counterclaim (Article 69(3) UPCA).

IPPT20260105, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communication
Decision on reimbursement of representation costs to the Defendant in appeal proceedings concerning the service of the statement of claim. (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 150 RoP, Rule 152 RoP, Rule 220 RoP) 
Proportional reduction of attorney's fees by two-thirds (Art. 48 (4) UPCA.). Procedural issue did not require the involvement of more than one lawyer, whereas 3 were hired. The involvement of a patent attorney for a non-technical question is not appropriate . Upper limit for reimbursable representation costs is not applicable in appeal proceedings ,a higher reimbursement of attorney's feesis not justified for for procedural issues. Value of Eur 1.5 million set for the infringement proceedings is irrelevant ; the appeal concerns only a fraction of this amount . 

IPPT20251212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Asus v OPPO 
Claimant (a Taiwanese company) ordered to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 200,000. (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 RoP). Enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, based on expert opinion. Taiwan is not a member of any international agreement which would govern the enforcement of foreign judgments in Taiwan. Based on the expert opinion, the timeframe to be expected for enforcement in Taiwan can vary from few months up to six years.

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight Technologies
Infringement action dismissed due to insufficient substantiation by the Claimant. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 171 RoP). Inadmissible counterclaim for revocation subject to intra-procedural condition (finding of infringement) (Rule 25 RoP). It can be left open, whether this situation falls within the ambit of amendment or withdrawal (Rule 263 RoP or Rule 265 RoP.) The aspect of costs is not an interest in itself  (Article 69 UPCA), the costs of the Counterclaim for revocation on Defendants part are not to be borne by Claimant.

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Menarini
Interim award of costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 211.1(d) RoP), no security for enforcement (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP). 

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, CooperSurgical v European Distribution Center Motiva 
Withdrawal of infringement action allowed (Rule 265 RoP).Costs incurred by the Defendants cannot be considered “exceptional” within the meaning of Art. 69(2) UPCA. The Defendants have acted as any cautious and reasonable defendant would have acted. Given the EPO procedural background, it was reasonable for the Defendants to assume that the Applicant would appeal the EPO 's decision if it confirmed its Preliminary Opinion. The Applicant acted with "undue delay" in submitting the Application for Withdrawal two weeks after the EPO confirmed its Preliminary Opinion, knowing that this would be only two weeks before the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation had to be submitted. Applicant to bear all costs of proceedings as "unsuccessful party". (Article 69(1) UPCA). Applicant is the “unsuccessful party”, not based on an assessment of arguments developed by the “successful party”, but merely on the withdrawal of the infringement action. ”Reasonable and proportionate” assessment of costs made from an ex ante perspective. (Rule. 152.1 RoP)  elements to be taken into consideration in this case are the value in dispute together with the ceiling, the significance of the case, the moment of withdrawal in the procedural agenda and the difficulty and complexity of the relevant legal and factual issues. Having the “costs” as such as an “ex ante” starting point with regard to the reasonability and proportionality safeguard the access to the UPC. Requested representation costs for Defendants 1-2 not reasonable and proportionate; an amount of €100.000,00 to be reasonable and proportionate. (Article 69 UPCA). Any reasonable defendant would timely prepare its Statement of Defence together with its Counterclaim for Revocation pending EPO proceedings and also further process these documents. The Action was withdrawn before the actual due date of the Statement of Defence and the Counterclaim for Revocation. Since the deadline to submit was due in 2 weeks, some work was still to be expected to be executed to fine-tune the SoD and Counterclaim for Revocation.

IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Costs decision (Article 69 UPCA) Costs incurred by Microsoft set at EUR 350,000.00, To be paid by Suinno in three weeks

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Rentmeister
Partial withdrawal of applicant’s claims for an interim award of costs allowed. (Rule 265 RoP , Article 69 UPCA)

IPPT20251015, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v EOFLow
Interim costs decision of CD Milan dated 22 July 2025 confirmed as final and binding decision. (Rule 150 RoP, Rule 151 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). 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. Costs relating to enforcement do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP and must be excluded (Rule 151 RoP) Enforcement costs falls outside the jurisdiction of the UPC.  Rule 150 RoP does not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision.

IPPT20250911, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Washtower v Wasombouw
Preliminary injunction for direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP), order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA), recall (Article 64(2)(b) UPCA )and cost award (Article 69 UPCA). 

IPPT20250904, UPC LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Security for costs regarding Claimant residing in China (Art. 69 (4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). The Local Division Mannheim has so far not been able to successfully serve a judicial document in the People's Republic of China (where Claimant resides) in any of the many proceedings pending before it, in particular in any SEP proceedings. It is therefore to be feared that enforcement against assets located there will be all the more difficult. Only half the requested amount of the upper limit (i.e., € 100.000) is set as security for the second defendant, since it is still unclear to what extent the first defendant will defend itself with a counterclaim for annulment, while a division of the upper limit between the parties […] is to be made.

IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Requests for rectification of decision on costs (Article 69(2) UPCA) dismissed. No obvious slip in decision of  21 July 2025  (R. 353 RoP). The decision – including items XII) and XIV) in its operative part – has the effect that the Claimant shall bear the remaining 25 % of its reasonable and proportionate costs in the counterclaim(s) for revocation and that the Defendants shall bear all its own costs. Neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure prevents such an allocation of costs.

IPPT20290829, UPC LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
Proceedings are closed: no need to adjudicate (R. 360 RoP) because of settlement with the first defendant (Article 76(1) UPCA) and cease-and-desist undertaking by the second defendant. Costs of the proceedings between the claimant and the second defendant to be borne by the defendant (Article 69 UPCA). By submitting a cease-and-desist declaration and providing zero information, the defendant has placed itself in the losing position. Equity does not require a different allocation of costs. No formal warning letter was required because the defendant was already aware of the infringement allegations which were explained to its employees.

IPPT20250813, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Winnow v Orbisk
If the counter claimant seeks revocation of claims not asserted against it, and those claims are upheld, a compensation of costs is in order (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 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. 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.

IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
The cap on costs of Article 1(3) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 March 2023 applies in each instance of the court proceedings, regardless of the number of parties or patents involved. (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Consequently, when considering patent infringement, where both an infringing manufacturer and an infringing distributor are involved in two separate but parallel proceedings concerning the same patent and the same act of infringement, a unitary approach is warranted. The cap established in Article 1(3) would be otherwise violated. 

IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, LD München, Headwater v Motorola
Security for costs for the benefit of defendants in infringement action, claimants in counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). Even if the defendant in an infringement action is formally the claimant in a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, he may, […] also request security for the costs incurred and/or to be incurred by him in bringing the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity. Otherwise, the defendant could be unreasonably restricted in his legal defence because he is forced to file a counterclaim for revocation in order to object to the validity of the contested patent without any prospect of reimbursement of the costs incurred as a result.

IPPT20250702, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex
Security for costs cannot be requested regarding a party intervening on behalf of the defendant (R. 315. RoP, Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP).

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Steros v Otec
Decision on costs (Article 69 UPCA). The Court is of the opinion, like the Court of Appeal […], that a cost decision should be issued in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures, since it concludes the action.

IPPT20250530, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
Defendants to provide security for the Claimant’s legal costs in the (total) amount of € 75.000 regarding the counterclaim for revocation (Article  69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide for an obligation on the part of the Defendant to provide security.  A Claimant can request a Defendant to provide security for costs to the extent that it concerns the counterclaim for revocation as a Defendant acting as Counterclaimant falls within the scope of Art. 69(4) UPCA

IPPT20250521, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens
No security for costs (R. 158 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). Also the claimant is permitted to submit a request for security for costs, as this rule does not restrict such actions to a defendant only. It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome. The burden of showing this is on the applicant of an order for security for costs. To this end, the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order shall be enforced, but also its application. The Defendants have not provided evidence of the applicable foreign law, just an argument about such, nor have they provided evidence about the application of such law. The Claimant argues that the enforcement of UPC orders and decisions is not unduly burdensome in the United States of America. The Court notes that, according to the UPC case law, US courts routinely recognise and enforce judgments of foreign courts

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

IPPT20250509, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, JingAo v Chint
Panel review of dismissal of security for costs by order of 2 April 2025 rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Reference can be made to the contested order for the reasons. The Defendants have not put forward any new convincing arguments. There is no experience available with regard to the enforcement of decisions on costs of the UPC in the People’s Republic of China.

IPPT20250507, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ericsson v Asustek

Withdrawal of (i) infringement action against and (ii) counterclaim for revocation by defendant Digital River’s, which is in insolvency proceedings (R. 265 RoP, R. 311 RoP). The Court finds that the principles of fairness and equity require that both Ericsson and Digital River bear their own costs in relation to these withdrawal proceedings. (Article 69(2) UPCA)

IPPT20250502, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea

Costs proceedings suspended until the UPC Court of Appeal has issued a judgment on the merits or the dispute is otherwise terminated (Article 69 UPCA, Article 74 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 295(c) RoP). The Judge-Rapporteur infers that, as an exception to the general rule (starting position), the stay of cost proceedings is possible in the following cases (whether individually or cumulatively): If an appeal has been lodged against the decision on the merits by the first judge (R.295(c) RoP), the Judge-Rapporteur may suspend the proceedings ex officio; If in the light of the "proper administration of justice", it is appropriate for the judge-rapporteur to stay the costs proceedings (in application of R. 295(m) RoP); If the specific circumstances of the case indicate that the application of Article 69(1) would lead to "unfair" consequences for the "unsuccessful party" (in this case, the Respondent), it is the Respondent’s responsibility to convince the Judge-Rapporteur of these “unfair” consequences arising from an enforceable costs decision.

IPPT20250429, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Roche Diabetes v Tandem Diabetes

The mere circumstance of a pending appeal against the decision on the merits does not constitute a sufficient reason to order the stay of the proceedings for cost decision (R. 295(m) RoP). Orders the defendants to pay jointly and severally € 117.741,62 as costs incurred by Roche (Article 69 UPCA)

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut - I
Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). That several lawyers from the same law firm were acting on behalf of the plaintiff does not preclude the necessity and appropriateness of the costs. Infringement analyses carried out in the run-up to the summary proceedings served to prepare for the main proceedings, which were to be expected in any case against the background of the parallel Swiss nullity proceedings and the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. On this basis, it is justified to allocate the costs incurred there to the main proceedings. Drafting a warning letter, an application for interim measures or a statement of claim, fall within the core area of a lawyer's work. Amount claimed falls within the limits set by the Administrative Committee’s decision of 24 April 2024, which apply separately to proceedings for interim measures and main proceedings 

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut - II
Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). Assumed that fees calculated on the basis of the German Lawyers' Fees Act are generally necessary and reasonable and therefore also recoverable before the Unified Patent Court.

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Emboliner v AorticLab
Security for costs ordered (Article 69(4) UPCA). A party filing a counterclaim for revocation (Art. 32 (1) e) UPCA) is an “Applicant” according to Art. 69 (4) UPCA. Respondent gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable, because he himself claims that he would be driven into insolvency in case of an injunction to desist. In terms of time, an order for costs would follow an injunction to desist so that Respondent would no longer be solvent at that point in time.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Claimant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Defendants 1., 2. and 4. in the amount of EUR 100.000  (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The Claimant has not provided any convincing evidence to substantiate its financial situation and, in particular, its ability to bear the possible costs of the proceedings. In its statement, the Claimant confirms that the solar market is currently difficult (for everyone in this market), in particular in view of the various infringing activities affecting its business.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce – II
Compensation for representation costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). The first and second defendants shall each pay the claimant EUR 31,982.85 for the costs of the infringement action within 21 days of service of this decision. The second defendant shall pay the claimant a further amount of EUR 51,112.73 for the costs of the counterclaim for annulment within 21 days of service of this decision.

IPPT20250407, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Leave to limit a claim unconditionally, which shall always be granted (R. 263.3 RoP) applies both in cases where a) the claimant limits the relief sought (petitum), for example by reducing the relief sought (e.g. injunction or damages); and b) the claimant limits the cause of action (causa petendi), for example after starting the proceedings to protect a plurality of patents, then it renounces one of them. Differently from rule 265 RoP (withdrawal), rule 263 RoP does not provide the regulation of the proceeding costs, because the proceedings continue against the defendant in relation to other claims. This solution doesn’t go against the "losing party bears the costs" principle, established by Article 69 UPCA: indeed, the unconditional limitation requested by the claimant will be considered by the Court regulating the costs decision.

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek - II
Ericsson must reimburse AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River after dismissed provisional measures only EUR 4,946.22 (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP). With regard to the costs of representation and the costs of expert evidence claimed by AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River, there may be an overlap with proceedings on the merits, thereby creating a risk of double assessment of costs, contrary to the principles of equity and proportionality.

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, JingAo v Chint
Security for costs dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The sole reference to the past difficulties of service under the Hague Service Convention in Germany as a member state does not provide sufficient reasons. As long as the Defendants’ have not provided any well-reasoned facts that a decision on cost by the UPC cannot actually be enforced, it must be assumed that this is just as likely in the People’s Republic of China as in any other non-EU states.

IPPT20250319, UPC CFI, LD Munich, MSG v EJP
€ 33.224,50 compensation for representation costs (Article 69 UPCA), R. 151 RoP, R. 152 RoP). Costs of legal proceedings are those costs that have been (actually) incurred in the specific pending or relevant proceedings. These include, in particular, the costs listed in Rule 151(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Other costs are those that have not been incurred in the pending proceedings but are directly and closely related to the proceedings in question. The costs in question must be cumulatively reasonable and appropriate, which is always a matter for the individual case. The criteria mentioned [...] ensure a high level of protection for European patents by preventing an injured party from being deterred from bringing legal proceedings to protect their rights and by ensuring that the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to enforce intellectual property rights are not unnecessarily costly. Reasonable means necessary. Based fundamentally on the ex ante position of a reasonable and economically rational party, the decisive factor is whether the measure incurring the costs appeared objectively necessary and suitable for achieving the legitimate objective of the proceedings. The measure must therefore have appeared relevant for the pursuit or defence of legal rights. The costs for preparing the application for a determination of costs in the amount of € 285.00 are to be reimbursed. These are also reasonable and appropriate costs for the appropriate legal defence.
 

IPPT20250319, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jingao v Chint
Claimant must provide security for costs to Defendants in an amount of € 200.000 (Article 69(4) UPCA). With regard to a country that fails to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention, it has to be assumed that an order for reimbursement of costs by the UPC may not be enforceable in this country or just in an unduly burdensome way. Although the People's Republic of China has ratified the Hague Service Convention, European courts are facing significant difficulties in serving statements of claim and other documents in China. 

IPPT20250224, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Bruker v 10x Genomics & Nanostring
Proceedings for costs incurred (€ 337.431,50) following appeal in summary proceedings (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP). Application for a cost decision admissible following a decision on costs (R. 242.1 RoP) by the Court of Appeal in proceedings for interim measures (summary proceedings). Application filed in due time, given extension of the one month period for filing the application as granted by judge-rapporteur (R. 151.1 RoP). The determination of the costs for summary proceedings in cost proceedings is final and is limited to costs claimed within the one month time period.

IPPT20250217, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Imbox v Brunngard
Joint legal costs of € 38.000 after withdrawal of application for provisional measures (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). Since the value of the proceeding is set in relation to the whole proceeding (not in relation to each defendant) and the decision by the Administrative Committee clearly states the ceilings shall apply “regardless of the number of parties”, the Court concludes that this legal framework must be understood to mean that when an application against several defendants is dismissed, the ceiling serves as a joint ceiling for all defendants’ representation costs. 

IPPT20250215, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP) since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore, does not give rise to an award of costs if the filing of an application for preliminary measures has already been followed or is to be followed by proceedings on the merits

IPPT20250210, UPC CFI, LD Munich, SSAB v Tiroler Rohre
Reasonable and proportionate legal costs of € 84.033,76 after withdrawn application for interim measures (Article 69 UPCA). No reason to object to that a team of one attorney-at-law and two patent attorneys was used to represent the two applicants. Verifiable objections required if the applicants list the individual activities with corresponding time specifications in their application for the determination of costs, it is up to the defendant to object to these items in detail, as has also been done here to some extent.

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Snowpixie v Golf Tech
Order to provide security for costs  of € 62.600 by a small enterprise (R. 158.5 RoP). Based on Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of May 6, 2003, concerning the definition of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, May 20, 2003, p. 36; for the application of this Recommendation, see ECJ, Judgment of March 10, 2021 – C-572/19 P), is at least a small enterprise in view of its turnover and number of employees. Particularly in the case of small enterprises, care must be taken to ensure effective access to justice. Any required security deposit must therefore be set at a level that allows for effective access to justice and prevents the enterprise’s action from being dismissed by default judgment due to a security deposit it cannot afford (Rule 158.5 RoP). If a small business reports an operating loss in its most recent annual accounts and there are insufficient assets available as security, a security deposit must be ordered in accordance with Rule 158 of the RoP at the request of the opposing party. When determining the amount of the security deposit, considerations of equity that will be relevant to the subsequent assessment of costs must be taken into account. This is because the assessment of the security must be based on the costs to be fixed in accordance with Article 69 of the UPCA; under Article 69 of the UPCA, considerations of equity may preclude the bearing of costs in whole or in part. A party who is able to pay both their own costs (court fees and legal representation costs) and a security set by the court is capable of bearing the costs. Legal aid cannot be granted in this case

IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
Intervener also treated as a party with regard to the bearing of legal costs; in this case 20% indicative (Article 69(2) UPCA, R. 315.4 RoP). In the present case, the intervener's statement of 19 August 2024 caused the plaintiff relatively little expense because the written proceedings had already been completed for her at that time.

IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama
Parties’ request for a 50% increase in the ceiling for representation cost denied (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). No particularly complex case; pre-trial settlement costs not considered; each party owes € 7,500 euros in legal 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. No provision for judge-rapporteur to grant leave to appeal from a cost decision. According to Rule 221 RoP, a party adversely affected by a decision referred to in Rule 157 RoP may, within 15 days of notification of the relevant decision of the Court of First Instance, file an application for leave to appeal with the Court of Appeal. 

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. 

IPPT20241220, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Pohl-Boskamp v pharma-aktiva
Preliminary injunction and provisional measures granted (article 62 UPCA). Order for provisional reimbursement of costs (€ 11.000) based on Art. 69 UPCA in conjunction with R. 211.1(d) RoP.

IPPT20241126, UPC CFI, LD Munich, GXD-Bio v Myriad
Claimant to provide security of € 112,000 for legal costs and other expenses (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). Based on the undisputed facts, there is legitimate and real concern that a possible cost order might not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible cost order by the UPC may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. There are significant doubts as to whether the Claimant, in the event of losing the proceeding, has sufficient funds for covering Defendants´ recoverable costs of the current lawsuit

IPPT20241203, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Defendant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Claimant in an amount of EUR 200,000. Defendant can also be ordered to provide security for legal costs (R. 158 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). It follows from the above that there is no conflict between Rule 158 RoP, in accordance with which a security may be imposed on a “party”, which includes a defendant, and the UPCA. In particular, there is no conflict with Article 69(4) UPCA, which does not exclude imposing a security on a defendant, and there is also no conflict with Article 56(1) UPCA as Article 69(4) provides the legal basis for a security, which may also be ordered against a defendant. In other words, the RoP comply with the UPCA (cf. Article 41(1) UPCA). Accordingly, the Defendant´s interpretation, on which its admissibility objections are based, is dismissed. In the absence of information on actual costs an amount of  EUR 200,000 is deemed adequate security 

IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
In line with previous case law of the Düsseldorf Local Division, there is no reason for a decision on the obligation to bear legal costs. The background of this case law is that neither Art. 69 UPCA nor R. 118.5 RoP constitute a suitable basis for a decision on the obligation to bear the costs in PI proceedings. […].

IPPT20241024, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
Application for interim measures withdrawn after oral hearing (Article 69 UPCA, R. 265 RoP). No legitimate interest in a ruling on the interim measures. Applicant to bear the legal costs of the defendant.

IPPT20241014, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Ballinno ordered to provide security for legal cost of claimant  Kinexon in revocation action (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). It is not necessary that the party claiming security has the formal position of a defendant in the lawsuit in which it claims security. It only matters whether it reacts to a claim of the other party. Therefore, a party is also defendant in the sense of Art. 69 (4) UPCA if it responds with a revocation action against an application for provisional measures. Irrevocable commitment to the Claimant in the proceedings not to further pursue its infringement case unless and until the Court of Appeal provisionally rules that the method and system, which Kinexon provided to UEFA infringes a valid EP 067 […] does not alter the risk that a possible cost order against Ballinno might not be recoverable by Kinexon and does not change the fact that Kinexon has costs which arise in reaction to Ballinnos application for provisional measures.

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.

IPPT20240927, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Suinno to provide security of € 300,000 for legal costs (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Undisputed that respondent’s business model is exclusively characterized by the enforcement of patents, namely the patent-in-suit, and asserting corresponding license claims; respondent does not generate sufficient income or other cash flow and no equity capital at all, does not maintain any other business, let alone has any physical assets, and does not even have an own office space.

IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Novartis v Celltrion
Request for security for costs rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). No facts indicating an alarming financial situation of the Applicants. Interim award of legal costs by analogy with R. 211.1 (d) RoP. (Rule 118.5 RoP). Unintended regulatory gap in procedure by which the decision on costs is made (Rule 118.5 RoP) if the application for provisional measures is unsuccessful and the applicant refrains from filing an action on the merits. 

IPPT20240820, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril - II
Application for security for legal costs dismissed (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). No indication that the Claimant would lack assets or will to pay costs of the proceedings and other costs incurred (or to be incurred) by Defendants, which the Claimant may have to bear. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that a possible order for costs by the UPC would not, or only in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable in the United States.

IPPT20240730, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
Intervention admissible on the condition that the intervener deposits a security for costs in the amount of EUR 134.000 with the UPC by 20 August 2024 ((Rule 314 RoP). While Article 69(4) UPCA only provides for the provision of a security for costs by the plaintiff, Rule 158 RoP extends the circle of addressees of such an order to "the parties" and thus also to the intervener if it is admitted. Legal interest in the result of the action requires a direct and present interest in the issuance of the order or decision requested by the supported party, which in any case can be affirmed if it is alleged that the product purchased from the intervener infringes the patent in suit (Rule 313(1) RoP).

IPPT20240619, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Sibio – EP283
Preliminary measures denied.  Abbott ordered to bear reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by Defendants in these proceedings, up to the applicable ceiling (Art. 69 UPCA; and R. 118.5 and R. 150.2 RoP); Even if the applicant were to be successful in the proceedings on the merits, it will still have to bear the costs of these proceedings as the unsuccessful party. 

IPPT20240521, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ARM v ICPillar
Security for costs of € 400.000 ordered because of potential inability for Claimant to cover the legal costs in case of losing (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP). Factors to be considered when ordering a security order include the financial position of the other party that may give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible cost order might not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible cost order by the UPC may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. In the present case, there are no exceptional circumstances that would be considered as unduly burdensome to justify the order. Nor does the mere fact that the Respondent is domiciled in the United States of America justify an order for security for costs. Potential risk of inability to cover the legal costs of the other party in case of losing the litigation. Respondent in its written comments did not provide any indication of its financial situation. Insurance taken out to cover the financial risks is insufficient for two reasons. Firstly, the purpose of this type of insurance is to provide a financial protection for ICPILLAR (the insured party), and not to protect the potential rights of the ARM entities (the applicants of the Security for cost request). Secondly, the full terms of the said insurance have not been disclosed and it is hence unclear what are the actual terms of the insurance.

IPPT20240516, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Stäubli Tec-Systems
Equity requires that the plaintiff bears the legal costs of the revocation action if the patent proprietor immediately surrendered the patent in reaction to a revocation action and the first submission of the relevant prior (Article 69 UPCA).  A prior written notice is no prerequisite for a revocation action (R. 42 RoP, R. 61.1 RoP) but the absence thereof may have consequences for the allocation of legal costs between the parties if the patent proprietor immediately acknowledges or surrenders the patent in response to the action for a declaration of invalidity. (Article 69 UPCA).  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.

IPPT20240514, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
Insolvency risk of the plaintiff is the relevant factor for security for costs of a party, not enforcement not enforcement risk in case of an EU domiciled plaintiff (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP). Claimant to provide security for the legal costs of the Defendants in the (total) amount of € 56.000. As the starting point the undisputed facts point into the direction of the argument of the defendants that there is a risk of insolvency of the claimant when it comes to the reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings. […]. In the present case the Panel has especially considered that the patent in suit was not only just recently assigned to the claimant, but that the transfer was performed months after the assignor entered into a pre-trial correspondence about a possible patent infringement with the defendants 2) and 3). This raises the concern that the purpose of this transfer might be to facilitate this litigation without any financial risk to applicant. 

IPPT20240423, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Volkswagen et al. v NST 
Request for security denied: balance of interests in favour of the Plaintiff (Article 69, Rule 158 RoP). Factors to be taken into account when issuing an order for security include the financial position of the other party which may give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible order for costs by the UPC may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. The imposition of a security for legal costs serves to protect the position and (potential) rights of the defendant, who has not chosen to commence the main proceedings. The protection of the defendant must be balanced against the burden on the claimant caused by an order to provide security. The fact that the Plaintiff has its registered office in a non-EU country, i.e. in the United States, cannot be relevant, as this would be a form of a priori discrimination, based precisely on the nationality of its registered office/domicile, which is not provided for in any source of law.

IPPT20240409, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
No interim award of costs (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 211(1)(d) RoP). There is no reason for a decision on costs in proceedings for interim measures if the summary proceedings are followed by proceedings on the merits. 

IPPT20240408, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
No access to written report and any other outcome of the measures to inspect premises and to preserve evidence and revocation of the measures to preserve evidence because applicant did not timely start proceedings on the merits (Article 60(9) UPCA, Rule 198 RoP, Rule 9(4) RoP). € 10.000 in legal fees apportioned equitably (Article 69(2) UPCA). This decision is based on procedural grounds only, without any assessment of the infringement or the validity of the patent. It is also the first decision of the UPC concerning a specific legal issue for which no other case law is available. 

IPPT20240227, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen
Value of proceedings set at 100 million euro in accordance with agreement between the parties (article 36 UPCA). Reasonable and proportionate costs recoverable up to a ceiling of 2 million euro in accordance with table published by the Administrative Committee (article 69 UPCA). Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate. The same applies to any expenses incurred. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties that the Court will, in principle, respect an agreement between the parties on the amount of costs that is deemed reasonable and proportionate. Use of slides during oral hearing of 4 June 2024 (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 112 RoP). 

IPPT20240213, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Defendant’s request for security for costs (“cautio iudicatum solvi”) rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA; Rule 158 RoP, Article 24 UPCA). Protecting the rights of the defendant should be balanced against the right of the claimant to enforce its patent rights. The main rationale for the cautio is to secure the enforceability of a potential cost order. If such order is directly enforceable after it is granted, it can serve as grounds not to allow a cautio at the start of or during the proceedings. UPC decisions and orders are directly enforceable in the Netherlands in accordance with Art. 82 UPCA, Art. 71d Brussels and R. 354.1 RoP. A cautio in this case is hence not justified because of the risk that a possible cost order in favour of Bioo will not be directly enforceable. This contrasts with the situation decided by the CD Munich [IPPT20231030]  – [....] – on which Bioo relies. In that case the relevant claimant was domiciled outside the EU and no treaty regarding the execution of judgments was in place. As a rule, the court finds that a cautio based solely on (expected) material unenforceability should be awarded in exceptional circumstances only. The court agrees that under the circumstances in the present situation, which involves two competing SMEs with limited finances, the financial strain on the claimant can be a serious impediment to enforcement of its rights and to access to justice, and hence for granting a cautio. Lastly the court takes into consideration that according to Dutch national procedural law it is not possible to give a cautio vis-a-vis plaintiffs domiciled or residing in the Netherlands (and hence in the EU) under any circumstances, and also if there is good reason to doubt the possibility of recovery of a potential cost order due to the financial situation of the claimant.

IPPT20240131, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard

Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (article 69 UPCA). In order for the parties and the Court to assess whether costs incurred are indeed reasonable and proportionate and whether or not equity requires otherwise, the Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate. The same applies to any expenses incurred. To this end, the Court will allow the filing of additional exhibits relating to costs until two weeks prior to the hearing (3 April 2024) for all costs incurred until that date. This submission may be updated by a further submission to be lodged at the latest noon CET on the day before the hearing (16 April 2024). The last submission may include an estimate of costs incurred for the hearing itself. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties that the Court will, in principle, respect an agreement between the parties on the amount of costs that is deemed reasonable and proportionate.

IPPT20231220, UPC CFI, LD Munich, SES-Imagotag v Hanshow
The applicant of an unsuccessful application for interim measures must generally also bear the costs incurred by the defendant as a result of a protective letter. This results from the fact that the filed protective brief has become part of the proceedings for the adoption of interim measures through its transmission in accordance with Rule 207.8 RoP. 

IPPT20231219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
Settlement of application for preliminary measures because of declaration and undertaking of discontinuance by the defendant. The provision of Rule 360 RoP (settlement of the main proceedings) applies mutatis mutandis to applications for interim measures. Under the circumstances it is equitable to order the defendant to pay the entire costs, irrespective of the prospect of success of the application for interim measures (Article 69 UPCA; Rule 118.5 RoP). Only obligation to reimburse costs can at present be determined, any further claims dismissed as currently premature. 

IPPT20240219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Interim decisions following case management hearing (Rule 334(d) RoP, Rule 336 RoP, (Rule 105(5) RoP): Setting value of infringement action at € 1 million, of the three nullity counterclaims at € 1 million and of the proceedings at € 2 million. 

IPPT20231205, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring

Defendants have to pay the full costs (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 354(4) RoP): (a) all of the infringements asserted by the applicants were also to be regarded as infringements, so that the applicants were completely successful with their application in this respect. (b) the fact that the applicants formally requested the imposition of significantly higher periodic penalty payments does not, in the view of the Chamber, lead to the applicants having to bear part of the costs of the periodic penalty payment proceedings, taking into account the fundamental considerations on the allocation of costs in Art. 69(1) and (2) UPCA, since the determination of the amount is at the discretion of the court (Rule 354.4 RoP) and information on the amount provided by the applicant can at most have the character of a proposal in this respect.

IPPT20231030, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard

Relevant factors when considering security for legal costs and expenses (Article 69(4) UPCA,  Rule 158 RoP). A legitimate and real concern that a possible cost order might not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible cost order by the UPC may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. It is for the party requesting a security order to bring forward facts and arguments why such an order is appropriate in a specific case. Once facts and reasons in support of a security request have been brought forward in a credible way, it is up to the responding party to contest such facts and reasons in a substantiated way, especially since that party will normally have knowledge of and will be in the possession of evidence in relation to its financial position and (the location of) its assets. Order to provide security for legal costs and other expenses pursuant to Rule 158.1 RoP to the amount of EUR 300,000. 

UPC CFI, LD Vienna, 13 September 2023, CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee
In proceedings for interim measures, the successful defendant can be finally awarded procedural costs upon application (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 150 RoP). The applicant cannot successfully claim the costs of these proceedings as the unsuccessful party, even if the proceedings on the merits are successful.