Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, ORD_7954/2025, 22 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 April 2025, Judge Thomas, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, assessed the costs that Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH must reimburse to Ortovox Sportartikel for the infringement action on EP 3 466 498 (UPC_CFI_16/2024), largely successful on 14 January 2025, the dismissed counterclaim for revocation and the earlier provisional measures proceedings at both instances. The amount is redacted. The order subjects the costs of the provisional measures to a ceiling separate from that of the main action, applied separately at each instance.

Question

Do the costs of provisional measures proceedings, claimed after the decision on the merits, count against the ceiling for the main action, and when must the application be made?

Decision

The application must be made within one month of service of the decision on the merits (Rule 151): the application of 14 February 2025 was admissible, whereas one filed before that decision is inadmissible according to the Court of Appeal in SharkNinja v Dyson (paragraphs 27 to 31). The costs of the main action were allowed on the basis of the uncontested apportionment proposed by Ortovox (paragraphs 39 to 46). The costs of the provisional measures are separately recoverable under their own ceiling of EUR 56,000, applied separately at first instance and on appeal: counting them against the main ceiling could exhaust it at the provisional stage, contrary to Art. 69(1) UPCA (paragraphs 47 to 54). The alternative request for itemised invoices was rejected, the breakdowns filed being sufficient (paragraph 40).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a proprietor that obtained provisional measures and then won on the merits can recover the costs of both phases in a single application, each within its own ceiling.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151 and 152

Other provisions

Administrative Committee decision on the ceilings for recoverable representation costs (D-AC/10/24042023_D)

Case law cited

SharkNinja v Dyson, Court of Appeal, 20 January 2025, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinenbau, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_696/2024)

Related decisions

• Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group, 14 January 2025, decision on the merits.
• Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group, 22 April 2025, confidentiality order on the costs application.
• Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group, 22 April 2025, assessment of the defendants’ costs.

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.