Franz Kaldewei v Bette (CFI, 13 May 2025)
| Date | 13 May 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_45185/2024 · ORD_45599/2024 |
| Parties | Franz 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.
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
- A party challenging the proportionality of costs must explain why their amount is out of line with the value, difficulty or importance of the case.
- Practical point: the value in dispute should be argued before the decision on the merits, challenged for the first time at the costs stage, it will not be reopened.
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
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
- claimantFranz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG4 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 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
EP 3 375 337mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 375 337 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.