Bayerische Motoren Werke v ITCiCo Spain (CFI, 31 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 31 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_412/2023, ORD_15677/2025), the Paris Central Division (Judges Catallozzi, presiding and rapporteur, Zhilova and Otten-Dünnweber, technically qualified) rejected Bayerische Motoren Werke’s application to supplement, by way of rectification, the order of 9 January 2025. That order had dismissed ITCiCo Spain’s application to set aside the decision by default of 16 September 2024 revoking EP 2 796 333, without ruling on the costs of that application. Those costs may still be claimed in the cost proceedings.

Question

Is the absence of a costs ruling on an application to set aside a decision by default a rectifiable error, and do those costs call for a separate decision?

Decision

Rule 353 covers only a gap between the decision the judge intended and its formal expression, which must be apparent from comparison with the reasons (paragraphs 6 to 8). Where the reasons contain nothing on costs, the omission cannot be rectified, and rectification cannot be used to interpret the decision (paragraphs 9 and 10). Since costs are allocated in the decision on the merits (Rule 118(5)), an application under Rule 356, an internal procedural remedy, needs no separate costs decision: its costs are claimed and assessed in the cost proceedings relating to the decision by default (paragraphs 11 to 13).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: costs incurred in defending a decision by default are to be quantified in the application for the determination of costs relating to that decision, with no prior rectification.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118(5), 150, 353 and 356

Case law cited

Paris Central Division, 8 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_189/2024)

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.