Opens in a new tab

Franz Kaldewei v Bette (CFI, 13 May 2025)

Date13 May 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_45185/2024 · ORD_45599/2024
PartiesFranz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG

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 order of 13 May 2025, the judge rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division set at EUR 84,950 the costs that Bette must reimburse to Franz Kaldewei following the decision on the merits of 3 July 2024 on EP 3 375 337 B1 (UPC_CFI_7/2023), which had largely upheld the infringement action. Payment is due by 13 June 2025. The order clarifies the burden on a party challenging the proportionality of costs.

Question

Were the representation costs claimed up to the ceilings reasonable and proportionate, given the defendant’s reliance on a short infringement period, low sales and a rejected settlement offer?

Decision

Under Art. 69(1) UPCA, costs are recoverable only if reasonable and proportionate, two cumulative conditions assessed ex ante (paragraphs 12 to 16): necessity for a reasonable party, then the amount in relation to the value, difficulty and importance of the case. The value of EUR 500,000 was not excessive given acts in seven countries, and a challenge raised for the first time at the costs stage was rejected (paragraph 18). The disproportionality objection was not substantiated: it had to address the amount, not merely necessity, and the cessation of sales or the refusal of a settlement were irrelevant (the two paragraphs numbered 21).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 150, 151, 152, 156.3 and 157
Directive 2004/48/EC
Arts 3 and 14
Case law cited
MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinen, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025, Seoul Viosys v expert, Düsseldorf Local Division, UPC_CFI_363/2023, Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2025, CJEU, 28 April 2022, C-531/20, NovaText, CJEU, 28 April 2022, C-559/20, Koch Media, CJEU, 28 July 2016, C-57/15, United Video Properties

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
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

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
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La juge rapporteure fixe à 84 950 euros les frais remboursables par Bette à Franz Kaldewei, payables avant le 13 juin 2025, l'objection de disproportion n'étant pas étayée.
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

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 375 337Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Franz Kaldewei v Bette (CFI, 3 July 2024) · Franz Kaldewei v Bette (CFI, 23 July 2026) · Franz Kaldewei v Bette (CFI, 1 December 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.