SES-imagotag v Hanshow Technology (CFI, 18 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 11 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_292/2023, ACT_567009/2023, App_44953/2024), the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann, presiding, T. Pichlmaier, rapporteur, M. Kokke, Judge Schwengelbeck) held inadmissible as out of time the request by Hanshow Technology and three other Hanshow companies to fix appeal costs of EUR 131,874.80 against SES-imagotag, after the Court of Appeal had on 13 May 2024 dismissed the appeal against the refusal of provisional measures.

Question

May the one-month time limit of Rule 151 RoP for requesting a cost decision be extended retroactively under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, or is re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP the only remedy?

Decision

The time limit expired on 13 June 2024, the request was filed on 18 June with the Court of Appeal, which referred it to the first-instance rapporteur and treated that date as the filing date. The division leaves open whether Rule 9.3(a) RoP generally permits a retroactive extension: it excludes it for the Rule 151 time limit, since re-establishment under Rule 320.1 RoP is a special rule that prevails. No request for re-establishment was made to the competent court, the requesting parties having deliberately chosen not to file one at first instance, and the fee was not paid on filing (Rules 320.2 and 371 RoP), so the request is treated as not filed (Rule 15.2 RoP). The extension request is rejected as not available and the request for a cost decision as inadmissible.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: once the one-month time limit of Rule 151 RoP is missed, only a request for re-establishment of rights, filed with the competent court and accompanied by payment of the fee, can save the cost request.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 15.2, 151, 221, 320 and 371

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited, outside the UPC: CJEU, cited as GRUR 2012, 904, on the special rule principle.

Related decisions

• SES-imagotag v Hanshow, 20 December 2023, first-instance order on provisional measures.
• SES-imagotag v Hanshow, 13 May 2024, Court of Appeal decision whose costs were claimed.

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.