DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CFI, 6 August 2025)
| Date | 6 August 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_66435/2024 · ORD_66571/2024 |
| Parties | AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO BILLING US CORP., AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 6 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_471/2023, ACT_594191/2023, App_66435/2024), the judge rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division (Judge Böttcher) dismissed the AYLO defendants’ application to fix the lawyers’ fees incurred in responding to the appeal, eventually withdrawn, that DISH Technologies and Sling TV had brought against a security for costs order. The order sets a useful timing rule: the costs of a procedural incident are not assessed separately.
Question
Can costs incurred in connection with a procedural order, such as an order for security under Rule 158 RoP, be fixed in separate proceedings before the decision on the merits?
Decision
The application is inadmissible: the Rules of Procedure provide for costs to be fixed after the decision on the merits and, where relevant, the decision on damages, an early partial application under Rule 150 RoP is inconsistent with that scheme and would fragment the proceedings. In the alternative, it has become moot: the merits decision of 6 June 2025 dealt with costs globally (court fees for the infringement action borne by the claimants, those for the counterclaim by the defendants, each party bearing its own extrajudicial costs, paragraph 174 of that decision), as Art. 69 UPCA and Rule 118.5 RoP allow, with no need to apportion the costs of each incident.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: costs of a procedural incident are claimed in the cost fixing that follows the merits decision, parties should make sure they are addressed in the costs decision itself.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(1) to (3)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.1, 118.5, 150, 157, 158, 221.1 and 265.2
- Case law cited
- DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM, Mannheim Local Division, 6 June 2025, decision on the merits, paragraph 174.
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantAYLO PREMIUM LTD12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantBRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantBROCKWELL GROUP LLC4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAYLO BILLING US CORP3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAYLO FREESITES LTD9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAYLO Billing Limited7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de fixation séparée des frais exposés dans un appel contre une ordonnance de garantie est irrecevable et, subsidiairement, sans objet après la décision globale sur les frais.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CFI, 6 June 2025) cited in this record
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.