Opens in a new tab

Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 30 March 2026)

Date30 March 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication For Costs
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_302/2025;UPC_CoA_305/2025;UPC_CFI_952/2026;UPC_CFI_951/2026
Registry referenceUPC_CoA_302/2025 · UPC_CoA_305/2025PR · UPC-CFI-952/2026PR · UPC-CFI-951/2026
PartiesRematec GmbH & Co KG v. Europe Forestry B.V.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

In an order of 30 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_302/2025 and UPC_CoA_305/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal dismisses Rematec’s request to refer its cost-fixing application to the Mannheim Local Division with an instruction that the Court of Appeal filing date count as the first-instance filing date. Cost fixing belongs to the first-instance judge-rapporteur, even for appeal costs, and the Court of Appeal has no power of referral in this area.

Question

Does the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction over a cost-fixing application following its own decision, and can it refer the application to the first instance while preserving the filing date?

Decision

Cost fixing is a separate procedure (Rules 150 et seq. RoP) that starts at first instance, before the judge-rapporteur (paragraph 9). The same applies after a Court of Appeal decision: the Rules lay down no separate procedure and, were it to start on appeal, no appeal would lie (Rules 157 and 221 RoP) (paragraph 10). The Court of Appeal therefore lacks jurisdiction (paragraph 11), and it is for the first instance to decide whether the appeal filing date matters (paragraph 12). Referral requires an express provision (Arts 33(2) and (3) and 75 UPCA, Rules 102 and 238A RoP), and there is none here (paragraph 14). The different approach taken in Hanshow no longer applies, the question of jurisdiction now being settled (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 33(2) and (3) and 75
Rules of Procedure
Rules 102, 150, 151, 157, 221 and 238A
Case law cited
Hanshow v VusionGroup, Court of Appeal, 29 July 2024

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

  • UPC_CoA_302/2025 official number
  • UPC_CoA_305/2025 official number
  • UPC_CFI_952/2026 official number
  • UPC_CFI_951/2026 official number

Follow these proceedings

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_952/2026, UPC_CFI_951/2026

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 17 February 2026 Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 17 February 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · UPC_CoA_302/2025, UPC_CoA_305/2025

    La cour d'appel infirme la décision de Mannheim, rejette la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, retient la contrefaçon des revendications 1 et 15 pour les broyeurs à nervures espacées d'au moins 70 mm et prononce injonction et mesures accessoires.

  2. 30 March 2026 Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 30 March 2026) Application For Costs · UPC_CoA_302/2025, UPC_CoA_305/2025, UPC_CFI_952/2026, UPC_CFI_951/2026 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
  3. 3 July 2026 Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 3 July 2026) Application Rop 333 · UPC_CoA_302/2025, UPC_CoA_305/2025

    La demande de réexamen de Rematec est rejetée : la fixation des frais, même ceux de l’appel, relève de la division locale, et la demande déposée devant la cour d’appel n’est pas renvoyée avec sa date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application For Costs
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande de renvoi de la demande de fixation des frais en première instance, avec conservation de la date de dépôt en appel, est rejetée. La cour d'appel est incompétente.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_952/2026, UPC_CFI_951/2026).
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.