AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, ACT_551054/2023, 29 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 29 April 2026 (ACT_551054/2023, action UPC_CFI_214/2023), the Helsinki Local Division disposed of the application for provisional measures brought in July 2023 by AIM Sport Development against five TGI Sport companies on the basis of EP 3 295 663 as devoid of purpose, set the value of those proceedings at EUR 9.9 million and ordered AIM Sport to bear TGI’s first-instance costs up to EUR 800,000. As the infringement action was dismissed on the same day, the order shows that an application for provisional measures that has become devoid of purpose does not escape a costs decision, which follows the outcome on the merits.

Question

Where an application for provisional measures becomes devoid of purpose, how should it be disposed of and who bears its costs?

Decision

Rule 360 RoP applies by analogy to provisional measures, and the application, whose rationale had gone, was disposed of as devoid of purpose. Keeping it alive merely to preserve a costs claim would waste the court’s resources (paragraphs 23 and 24). The sequence of events does not decide costs: the division followed the outcome on the merits and, as the patent was not infringed, ordered AIM Sport to bear the costs under Art. 69(1) UPCA (paragraphs 25 to 27). Costs of provisional measures are dealt with separately from those of the merits, subject to a ceiling of EUR 800,000 (paragraphs 29 and 30). AIM Sport does not bear the costs of the appeal it won (paragraphs 31 and 32). The time limit for appeal is two months (paragraphs 36 to 38).

Key points for practice

• An application for provisional measures that has become devoid of purpose leads to a costs decision aligned on the outcome of the main action (paragraphs 25 to 27).
• Costs of provisional measures proceedings are subject to a ceiling separate from that of the merits (paragraphs 29 and 30).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 69(1) and (2) and 73(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 220.1, 220.2, 224.1(a), 242.1, 360 and 363.2

Other provisions

Scale of Ceilings for Recoverable Costs of 24 April 2023

Case law cited

Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, Munich Local Division, 19 December 2023, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, Court of Appeal, 4 October 2024, Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025, Juul v NJOY, Court of Appeal, 3 April 2024, Fives v REEL, Hamburg Local Division, 11 February 2026

Related decisions

• AIM Sport Development AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy, 29 April 2026, decision on the merits given the same day.
• AIM Sport Development AG v Supponor Oy, 12 November 2024, Court of Appeal decision remitting the case to Helsinki.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.