Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup (CoA, 21 February 2025)

Date	21 February 2025
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_8874/2025
Parties	Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH v. SES-imagotag SA

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 21 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_618/2024, APL_57918/2024), the Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal (Judge Simonsson) dismissed VusionGroup’s applications for a default decision and for the appeal to be rejected as inadmissible, in the appeal brought by Hanshow Technology against a Munich Local Division decision of 18 October 2024 on the determination of costs (EP 3 883 277). The order clarifies the procedure for appeals on costs (Rule 221): the application for leave serves, in principle, as the statement of appeal.

Question

Absent a separate statement of appeal (Rule 224), must an appeal against a costs decision be rejected as inadmissible, and had the additional fee been paid?

Decision

The Local Division had held Hanshow’s application for the determination of costs out of time (Rule 151), leave to appeal was granted on 15 November 2024 (Rule 221.3). The additional fee of EUR 1,500, bringing the fee to EUR 3,000 (Rule 221.4), was credited on 5 December 2024, so the application for a default decision failed (paragraph 7).

Cost determination is a summary procedure (paragraph 10). The application for leave must itself set out the grounds, facts, evidence and legal arguments (Rule 221.2), and the Standing Judge decides, by analogy with Rule 220.4, whether further pleadings are needed (paragraphs 11 to 14). Hanshow’s application of 31 October 2024, reasoned in sufficient detail, was therefore treated as the statement of appeal, VusionGroup being allowed to respond (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

An appeal against a costs decision does not require a separate statement of appeal: a complete application for leave takes its place.
Practical point: draft the Rule 221 application for leave as a full statement of appeal and pay the additional fee promptly.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 151, 220.4, 221.2, 221.3, 221.4, 224 and 233.3
Case law cited: Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_486/2023).

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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

claimantHanshow Germany GmbH7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantHanshow France SAS6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantHanshow Netherlands B.V.6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantHanshow Technology Co. Ltd.6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSES-imagotag SA5 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: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La taxe complémentaire ayant été payée et la demande d'autorisation valant mémoire d'appel, les demandes de décision par défaut et d'irrecevabilité de VusionGroup sont rejetées.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 883 277 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Netgear v Huawei (CoA, 21 March 2024) 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 3 883 277`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Hanshow Germany v VusionGroup (CoA, 24 July 2025) · Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup (CoA, 6 June 2025) · SES-imagotag v Hanshow (CoA, 13 May 2024) · SES-imagotag v Hanshow Technology (CFI, 20 December 2023)	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.