Rule 213 – Revocation of provisional measures

1. The Court shall ensure that provisional measures are revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, upon request of the defendant, without prejudice to the damages which may be claimed, if, within a time period not exceeding 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is the longer, from the date specified in the Court’s order, the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits of the case before the Court. When specifying the date, the Court shall take due account, where applicable, of the date on which the Report referred to in Rule 196.4 shall be presented.

2. Where provisional measures are revoked, or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of the patent, the Court may order the applicant, upon request of the defendant, to provide the defendant with appropriate compensation for any injury caused by those measures [Rule 354.2].

3. The applicant shall pay a fee for the request under paragraph 1 in accordance with Part 6

Relation with Agreement: Article 60(9).

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20251001, UPC CoA, Bruker v 10x Genomics
A party submitting a request to lay open books for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation pursuant to R. 213.2 RoP is liable for both the fixed fee and the value-based fee for the determination of damages (R. 132 RoP). Fees for compensation are not included in fees for provisional measures; they are separate proceedings. Combining claims does not reduce fees, including liability and quantum requests in one application does not remove or reduce the fee obligation
 

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.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20250825, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, MED-EL v Nurotron
A lawyer authorised to represent a party in a proceeding on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action concerning the same patent (Article 48(1) UPCA, R. 8.1 RoP, even if there is a link between the two proceedings (cf. e.g. Article 32.2 UPCA, Rule 213 RoP). Hence, the link between the proceedings in this case is different from the one assessed by LD Mannheim in case UPC CFI 445/2025, where it was held that the representative in the main proceeding (an infringement action) could be served an application that was inextricably linked to that main proceeding, even if the power of attorney was limited in this respect. 

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Bruker
Application for compensation for injury caused by provisional measures requires payment of court fees (R. 213.2 RoP). The legal basis for this fees are Rules 370.2(e), 132 RoP ("Fee for the Application for the determination of damages") RoP. The expression "damages" used in Rule 132 RoP (Chapter 4: Procedure for the determination of damages and compensation) shall be deemed to include compensation according to R. 213.2 RoP. This is explicitly stated in Rule 125 RoP (sentences 2 and 3). 

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Disney
Order under penalty of a fine of € 100.000 to accept service of anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) by the representatives of defendants in the main proceedings (R. 354.3 RoP, R. 213 RoP). The request and the order issued are therefore inextricably linked to the main proceedings. Therefore, the power of attorney cannot be effectively restricted in this respect either. This is already evident from the fact that the representation of the respondents by the lawyers in the main proceedings clearly cannot depend on whether the AASI application is filed in the main proceedings themselves as an accompanying application under Rule 206 VerfO or in separate application proceedings. In both cases, the subject matter is the same: the protection of the main proceedings from the imposition of a ban on litigation in a foreign forum, which is intended to prevent the domestic continuation of the proceedings. Violation of code of conduct by representative which may lead to exclusion (R. 290.2 RoP, R. 291 RoP).

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Panel review: order of judge-rapporteur to dismiss application to revoke provisional measures upheld (R. 333 RoP. R. 15 RoP, R. 213(1) RoP). Nothing in R. 213 (1) RoP states or implies that the court fees have to be received by the court in order to start the proceedings. As Syngenta has started the main proceedings and has paid the court fee in due time, the application must be dismissed.

IPPT20241212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Application to revoke provisional measures dismissed (R. 213(1) RoP, R. 15(2) RoP). As the respondents have started the main proceedings and paid the court fee in time the application is to be dismissed.

IPPT20241209, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Realtek
Anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction granted (Article 62 UPCA). R. 213.1 RoP does not grant any discretion regarding the setting of a deadline for starting proceedings on the merits before the court

IPPT20240731, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycel
Provisional injunction granted (Rule 211(1) RoP, Rule 118.5 RoP, Rule 213.1 RoP). A cost decision (including the height of the costs to be reimbursed) is to be taken in the proceedings on the merits, that will have to follow these proceedings. The court shall specify the date pursuant to R. 213.1 RoP relevant for starting these proceedings in the order.

IPPT20240409, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
Provisional measures do not require risk taking by applicant but reliable knowledge of relevant facts (Article 47 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Rule 213 RoP). The applicant only needs to call upon the court if he has reliable knowledge of all the facts that make legal action in the proceedings for an order for provisional measures promising and if he can make these facts credible: that the applicant is entitled to initiate the proceedings, that the patent in question is valid and that its right is infringed or threatened to be infringed.