Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup (CoA, 29 July 2024)
| Date | 29 July 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_36394/2024 · ORD_38645/2024 |
| Parties | Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd |
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 29 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_1/2024, APL_8/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal referred to the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division the application for the determination of costs filed by the Hanshow companies following the Court of Appeal’s order of 13 May 2024, which had dismissed VusionGroup’s (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal in provisional measures proceedings. The date of filing with the Court of Appeal, 18 June 2024, may be treated as the date of filing at first instance.
Question
Must an application for the determination of costs following a Court of Appeal decision, concerning appeal costs, be lodged with the Court of Appeal or at first instance?
Decision
Cost determination is a separate procedure (Rules 150 et seq. RoP) with its own route of appeal (Rules 157 and 221 RoP): it therefore starts at first instance (paragraph 9). The Rules provide no special procedure after an appeal decision, and filing with the Court of Appeal would deprive the parties of an appeal against the costs decision (paragraph 10). Appeal costs cannot be added to the application already pending at first instance: a new application must be filed within one month of service (Rule 151 RoP), and the judge-rapporteur may coordinate the two procedures (paragraph 11). As the point was unclear under the UPCA and the Rules, the application is referred to first instance with the filing date of 18 June 2024 (paragraph 12).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: an application for the determination of costs, appeal costs included, is to be lodged with the first-instance judge-rapporteur within one month of service of the appeal decision.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.3(a), 150, 151, 157 and 221
Related decisions
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
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
- claimantHanshow Germany GmbH7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantHanshow France SAS6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantHanshow Netherlands B.V.6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantHanshow Technology Co. Ltd.6 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 demande de fixation des frais d'appel relève du juge rapporteur de première instance. Elle lui est renvoyée avec la date de dépôt du 18 juin 2024.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- SES-imagotag v Hanshow (CoA, 13 May 2024) cited in this record
- SES-imagotag v Hanshow Technology (CFI, 20 December 2023) cited in this record
- Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 3 July 2026) cites this decision
- Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 30 April 2026) cites this decision
- Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 30 March 2026) cites this decision
- EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, 22 July 2025) cites this decision
- Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 22 July 2025) cites this decision
- Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 17 April 2026) cites this decision
- Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup (CoA, 6 June 2025) cites this decision
- SES-imagotag v Hanshow (CFI, 11 October 2024) cites this decision
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.