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

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.

IPPT20211217, 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.

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. 

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

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.

IPPT202450217, 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.

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. 

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.