AsusTek Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, 4 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

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 for provisional measures based on EP 2 819 131. The application was held admissible although no decision on the merits had been given, but only the representatives’ travel costs, EUR 4,946.22, were awarded, payable by 10 May 2025, representation and expert costs were left to the action on the merits Ericsson brought on 29 November 2024.

Question

May a defendant that has defeated an application for provisional measures obtain a costs decision under Rules 150 and 151 RoP before any decision on the merits, and for which items?

Decision

Article 69 UPCA applies to provisional measures proceedings. Read literally, Rules 150 et seq. RoP do not cover this situation, but they apply mutatis mutandis, as otherwise a successful defendant would recover nothing (paragraphs 9 to 17). The merits action will not revisit the ground for refusal (lack of urgency) and Arvato is not a party to it, which distinguishes Eoflow v Insulet and SharkNinja v Dyson (paragraphs 18 to 22). For reasons of proportionality and equity, representation and expert costs, which overlap with the merits action, will be assessed once, in that action (paragraphs 23 and 24). Travel costs relating only to the provisional measures were awarded. The parties’ own costs, insufficiently substantiated, were refused (paragraphs 25 to 28).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant that defeats provisional measures may seek its costs without waiting for the merits, but items to be assessed in a pending merits action will be deferred to it.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 156.2, 157 and 211.1(d)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 14

Case law cited

SharkNinja v Dyson, Court of Appeal, 20 January 2025, Eoflow v Insulet, Milan Central Division, 15 February 2025, Insulet v Menarini, Milan Central Division, 23 December 2024, Dyson v SharkNinja, Munich Local Division, 21 May 2024, Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2024, Valeo Electrification v Magna, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024, Novartis v Celltrion, Düsseldorf Local Division, 6 September 2024, Cup&Cino v Alpina, Vienna Local Division, 13 September 2023

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.