Application For Costs
Decisions of the Unified Patent Court recorded under "Application For Costs" in UPC Litigation Watch, the case law database maintained by Dhenne Avocats.
Find a decision in three steps
- 1. SearchEnter a party name, case number or keyword.
- 2. RefineUse the filters to refine your search, then select Filter.
- 3. ReadOpen a title. The “Decision with commentary” badge identifies a case note by the firm.
Scope, method and reading key
UPC decisions and orders since 1 June 2023. “Decision with commentary” means the entry contains an analysis by Dhenne Avocats. “Summary available” identifies a summary; “Reference” identifies a record without a detailed case note. Open the entry for the source and, where available, the facts, reasoning and practical implications. The official decision is authoritative.
Advanced search
Combinable filters, search within the records or the full text of the decisions, copy reference, selection and export. The keyword and reference search above remains available.
Favourites are kept in this browser only.
Compare two parties or two issues
Coverage actually indexed: 2524 records out of 2524, full text available for 2349 decisions (official PDFs extracted), 0 pending, 32 requiring optical recognition, 126 without a PDF. A search within decision text covers only extracted documents and is not exhaustive. Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus, counts are neither market shares nor success rates.
36 decisions recorded
Niche Biomedical v ONWARD Medical (CoA, 27 April 2026)
In a decision of 27 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_60/2026), the presiding judge and rapporteur of the Court of Appeal allows, by analogy with Rule 265.1 RoP, the withdrawal of the application for the determination of costs (Rule 151) filed the same day by…
Read the analysisSeoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 10 April 2026)
In a decision of 10 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1110/2025 and UPC_CFI_1111/2025), in German, the Düsseldorf Local Division assesses the costs owed by Seoul Viosys to expert e-Commerce and expert klein following the Court of Appeal's judgment of 2 October 2025, which had set…
Read the analysisSeoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 9 April 2026)
In a decision of 9 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1477/2025), in German, the Düsseldorf Local Division sets at EUR 50,450.52 the appeal costs owed by Seoul Viosys to expert e-Commerce and expert klein, after the Court of Appeal dismissed, on 5 November 2025, Seoul…
Read the analysisRematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 30 March 2026)
In an order of 30 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_302/2025 and UPC_CoA_305/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal dismisses Rematec's request to refer its cost-fixing application to the Mannheim Local Division with an instruction that the Court of Appeal filing date count as…
Read the analysisSyntorr LP v Arthrex (CoA, UPC_CoA_889/2025, 18 February 2026)
In an order of 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_889/2025), the Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_114/2025) requiring Syntorr, a Cypriot company and proprietor of EP 3 835 470, to provide EUR 2,000,000 as security for costs…
Read the analysisSyntorr LP v Arthrex (CoA, UPC_CoA_890/2025, 18 February 2026)
By order of 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_890/2025), the Court of Appeal, on discretionary review, set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr, claimant in an infringement action on EP 2 670 898 against three Arthrex companies, to provide security for costs…
Read the analysisAWM v Progress Maschinen & Automation (CFI, 10 February 2026)
In an order of 10 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1738/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division stayed the cost application brought by AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. against Progress Maschinen & Automation AG until the Court of Appeal rules on the appeal against…
Read the analysisHeraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 13 January 2026)
By an order of 13 January 2026, the full panel of the Munich Local Division granted Heraeus Electronics re-establishment of rights in the one-month period under Rule 151.1 for starting cost-assessment proceedings, following the decision on the merits of 10 October 2025…
Read the analysisNera Innovations (CFI, 5 January 2026)
Read the French analysisNera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 5 January 2026)
In an order of 5 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_730/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division assessed the costs that Nera Innovations must reimburse to the Xiaomi companies for the unsuccessful appeal on service of the statement of claim (UPC_CoA_205/2024).
Read the analysisHefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump v Grundfos (CoA, 19 December 2025)
In an order of 19 December 2025, made in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025, the Court of Appeal ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump, an appellant based in China, to provide security of EUR 75,000 per appeal in favour of Grundfos…
Read the analysisFaro v Blankenhorn (CFI, 11 November 2025)
By an order of 11 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_879/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division allowed Faro Technologies to withdraw its application for the assessment of costs against Blankenhorn, following proceedings UPC_CFI_500/2025 (EP 4 001 835).
Read the analysisOerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CoA, 30 October 2025)
By order of 30 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_8/2025, proceedings in Italian, EP 2 145 848), the Court of Appeal ruled on the application for security for costs brought by Oerlikon Textile, the respondent, against Bhagat Textile Engineers, the appellant found to infringe by…
Read the analysisInsulet v EOFLOW (CFI, 15 October 2025)
In a decision of 15 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Central Division assessed the recoverable costs payable by EOFLOW to Insulet following the decision on the merits of 22 July 2025 (proceedings UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI_774/2025, patent EP 4 201 327).
Read the analysisAlexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis (CFI, 1 August 2025)
Read the French analysisNovartis v ZENTIVA PORTUGAL (CFI, 31 July 2025)
By a decision of 31 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_382/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Central Division ruled on the costs claimed by Novartis from ZENTIVA K.S. and ZENTIVA PORTUGAL following the dismissal, on 21 March 2025, of their application to intervene in an…
Read the analysisSeoul Viosys v Photon Wave (CFI, 27 July 2025)
Read the French analysisOrthoApnea v *** (CFI, 25 July 2025)
By order of 25 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_131/2025), Judge Granata, judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division, ordered the defendant, an individual whose name is redacted, to pay OrthoApnea and VIVISOL B EUR 41,656.64 for the first-instance costs of the infringement action on EP…
Read the analysisKoninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 22 July 2025)
By order of 22 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_845/2024), the Court of Appeal allowed Koninklijke Philips to withdraw the application for a cost decision against Belkin that it had lodged with the Court of Appeal by mistake on 2 July 2025, and declared the…
Read the analysisKodak Graphic Communications v FUJIFILM (CFI, 9 July 2025)
By decision of 9 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_355/2023 and UPC_CFI_186/2025), the judge rapporteur Thomas (Düsseldorf Local Division) fixed the costs FUJIFILM must reimburse to the Kodak companies after EP 3 594 009 was revoked in its entirety and the infringement action dismissed on…
Read the analysisOrthoApnea v *** (CFI, 2 May 2025)
On OrthoApnea and Vivisol's application for EUR 92,814.62 in costs following their success in the infringement action on EP 2 331 036 against an individual defendant (UPC_CFI_131/2025), the judge rapporteur Granata (Brussels Local Division) stayed the costs proceedings until the Court of…
Read the analysisRoche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care Europe (CFI, ACT_831/2025, 29 April 2025)
By order of 29 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_11/2025, ACT_831/2025, ORD_11186/2025), Judge Catallozzi, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division, sitting alone, set at EUR 117,741.62 the costs that Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
Read the analysisITCiCo Spain v Bayerische Motoren Werke (CFI, 29 April 2025)
By order of 29 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_98/2025, App_6322/2025, ORD_20395/2025), Judge Catallozzi, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division, rejected an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke for a cost decision against ITCiCo Spain covering only ITCiCo Spain's unsuccessful application to set…
Read the analysisITCiCo Spain v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktie (CFI, 29 April 2025)
Read the French analysisRoche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care Europe (CFI, ORD_20415/2025, 29 April 2025)
Read the French analysisOrtovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, ORD_7954/2025, 22 April 2025)
Read the French analysisOrtovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, ORD_7951/2025, 22 April 2025)
By a decision of 22 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_16/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered Ortovox Sportartikel to reimburse EUR 4,866.11 in costs to Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH, rather than the EUR 9,732.21 claimed, following the…
Read the analysisexpert klein v Seoul Viosys (CFI, 14 April 2025)
By decision of 14 April 2025 (ACT_66999/2024 and ACT_67004/2024, UPC_CFI_483/2023 and counterclaim CC_3555/2024), Presiding Judge Thomas, acting as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, rejected as inadmissible the application by expert e-Commerce and expert klein to fix costs of EUR 111,000.
Read the analysisSeoul Viosys v expert klein (CFI, 14 April 2025)
By decision of 14 April 2025 (ACT_60376/2024, UPC_CFI_363/2023 and UPC_CFI_677/2024), Presiding Judge Thomas, acting as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, fixed the costs owed to Seoul Viosys following the decision of 10 October 2024, which had upheld the infringement action on…
Read the analysisAsusTek Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 4 April 2025)
By decision of 4 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_697/2024, ORD_68336/2024), Judge-rapporteur Rute Lopes of the Lisbon Local Division ruled on the costs application of AsusTek Computer, Arvato Netherlands and Digital River Ireland following the dismissal, on 15 October 2024, of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson's application…
Read the analysisEJP Maschinen v MSG Maschinenbau (CFI, ORD_65866/2024, 19 March 2025)
By decision of 19 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_696/2024), Judge Voß, presiding judge and rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, ordered MSG Maschinenbau to pay EJP Maschinen EUR 33,224.50 within 21 days in costs of the infringement action on EP 3 225 320, withdrawn…
Read the analysisEJP Maschinen v MSG Maschinenbau (CFI, ORD_69088/2024, 19 March 2025)
Read the French analysisSSAB Europe v Tiroler Rohre (CFI, ORD_68941/2024, 10 February 2025)
By a decision of 10 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_640/2024, ACT_59020/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (Judge Pichlmaier) set at EUR 84,033.76 the first-instance costs that Tiroler Rohre must reimburse to SSAB Swedish Steel and SSAB Europe Oy by 15 March 2025,…
Read the analysisSSAB Europe v Tiroler Rohre (CFI, ORD_65844/2024, 10 February 2025)
Read the French analysisDISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CoA, 9 January 2025)
By order of 9 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_611/2024), the Court of Appeal ordered that 60% of the court fees for the appeal be refunded to DISH Technologies and Sling TV, who had lodged and then withdrawn an appeal against the Mannheim Local Division…
Read the analysis