Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 5 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 5 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_730/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division assessed the costs that Nera Innovations must reimburse to the Xiaomi companies for the unsuccessful appeal on service of the statement of claim (UPC_CoA_205/2024). The amounts are redacted in the published version, save for the court fees. The order offers concrete guidance on recoverable costs in a purely procedural appeal.

Question

Which representation, travel and court costs are recoverable for an appeal under Rule 220.2 on a question of service, and are the costs of the cost assessment proceedings themselves recoverable?

Decision

On a purely procedural, non-technical question, a reasonable party would have instructed a single lawyer: involving a patent attorney was not warranted and the lawyers’ fees were reduced by two thirds (paragraphs 25 to 27). The ceiling set by the Administrative Committee does not apply to this appeal, whose value is only a fraction of the EUR 1.5 million infringement action (paragraphs 28 and 29). Travel costs for one lawyer and one representative of the defendants were allowed (paragraph 30). The counterclaim court fees are recoverable at 20%, namely EUR 3,800 (paragraph 31). Each party bears its own costs of the assessment proceedings, following the Court of Appeal order of 6 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_618/2024) (paragraph 32). The fee information was declared confidential and excluded from third-party access (paragraph 33).

Key points for practice

• In a procedural appeal with no technical issue, the cost of a patent attorney in addition to a lawyer should not be assumed to be recoverable.
• Practical point: the costs of obtaining a cost assessment generally lie where they fall, and fee data can be protected under Rule 262.2.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48(4), Art. 58 and Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 151, 152.1, 156.1, 157, 220.2, 262.1 and 262.2

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, order of 6 June 2025, UPC_CoA_618/2024, Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing, 8 September 2025, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications, 6 August 2024

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.