Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 30 March 2026)
| Date | 30 March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application For Costs |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_302/2025;UPC_CoA_305/2025;UPC_CFI_952/2026;UPC_CFI_951/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CoA_302/2025 · UPC_CoA_305/2025PR · UPC-CFI-952/2026PR · UPC-CFI-951/2026 |
| Parties | Rematec GmbH & Co KG v. Europe Forestry B.V. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 17 February 2026 : Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 17 February 2026) UPC_CoA_302/2025 · UPC_CoA_305/2025 · APL_15656/2025 · APL_15830/2025
- 3 July 2026 : Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 3 July 2026) UPC_CoA_302/2025 · UPC_CoA_305/2025
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
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
- Practical point: a cost-fixing application, including for appeal costs, must be filed directly with the first-instance division.
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
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_302/2025official numberUPC_CoA_305/2025official numberUPC_CFI_952/2026official numberUPC_CFI_951/2026official number
UPC_CFI_952/2026, UPC_CFI_951/2026Parties
- claimantRematec GmbH & Co KG6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantEurope Forestry B.V.6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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.
- 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 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
- Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 3 July 2026) cited in this record
- Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 17 February 2026) cited in this record
- Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup (CoA, 29 July 2024) cited in this record
- Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 30 April 2026) cites this decision
- Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics (CoA, 17 April 2026) cites this decision
- Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, UPC_CoA_88/2026, UPC_CoA_89/2026, 13 October 2026) 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.