EJP Maschinen v MSG Maschinenbau (CFI, ORD_65866/2024, 19 March 2025)

Date	19 March 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application For Costs
Registry reference	ACT_61090/2024 · ORD_65866/2024
Parties	EJP Maschinen GmbH v. MSG Maschinenbau GmbH

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

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MSG Maschinenbau to pay EJP Maschinen EUR 33,224.50 within 21 days in costs of the infringement action on EP 3 225 320, withdrawn after an EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent, and of the counterclaim for revocation. EJP had claimed EUR 39,494.50 plus interest. The decision is published in two twin files.

Question

May a single application cover the action and the counterclaim, and which fees of a regular lawyer who is not a representative, and what interest, are recoverable?

Decision

A single application may cover both proceedings (paragraphs 16 and 17). Recoverable costs must be reasonable, meaning necessary on an ex ante view of a prudent party, and appropriate, meaning not disproportionate (paragraphs 19 to 22). The representatives’ fees were allowed, including for a request to join a third party (Rule 316A) linked to the supplier of the accused device (paragraphs 23 to 28). EUR 6,270 in fees of EJP’s regular lawyer were refused, as he was not a representative under Article 48 UPCA and his work duplicated theirs (paragraphs 29 and 30). The amount stays below the EUR 112,000 ceiling resulting from adding the two values of EUR 500,000 (paragraph 37). No interest is payable, as neither the Agreement nor the Rules provide for it (paragraph 38).

Key points for practice

Practical point: fees of a regular adviser who duplicates the UPC representatives are not recoverable, and costs awarded carry no interest.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 48 and 69(1) and (2)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 150, 151, 152, 157 and 316A
Directive 2004/48/EC: Arts 3 and 14
Case law cited: Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 10 January 2025

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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

EJP Maschinen v MSG Maschinenbau (CFI, 2025-03-19), 19 March 2025

Going further

Lexicon: 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

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantEJP Maschinen GmbH3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantMSG Maschinenbau GmbH3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application For Costs
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): MSG Maschinenbau doit payer 33 224,50 euros à EJP Maschinen. Les honoraires de l'avocat habituel non représentant et les intérêts sont refusés.
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.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 225 320 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

EJP Maschinen v MSG Maschinenbau (CFI, ORD_69088/2024, 19 March 2025) cited in this record
Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (CFI, 10 January 2025) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 225 320`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinen (CFI, 11 October 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.