biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, 13 August 2026, doc. 2)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 13 August 2026, issued in German (UPC_CFI_256/2025), the presiding judge, acting as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, set the value of the provisional measures proceedings UPC_CFI_486/2024 at EUR 1,000,000 and stayed the cost-fixing proceedings brought by Light Guide Optics Germany and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International against biolitec until the final decision on the infringement action and counterclaim pending before the Munich Local Division. In practice, the order confirms that once an application for provisional measures has been dismissed, the reimbursement of costs may be deferred until the end of the main action.

Question

Should an application to fix the costs of provisional measures proceedings, and of the ensuing appeal, be decided immediately while the main action is pending before another division?

Decision

The application was admissible, having been filed in time (paragraph 3). However, following Court of Appeal case law, a single costs decision at the end of the main action is more proportionate and efficient than piecemeal review (paragraph 4), parties also frequently settle such costs out of court, and a referral to the division hearing the merits might be possible (paragraph 5). The proper administration of justice therefore required a stay under Rule 295(m) RoP, a less intrusive course than dismissing the application (paragraph 6). The value of the provisional measures proceedings, on which the parties agreed, was set at EUR 1,000,000.

Key points for practice

• Costs of dismissed provisional measures proceedings may be fixed only after the final decision on the merits, even where another division hears the main action (paragraphs 4 to 6).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 152 and 295(m)

Case law cited

SharkNinja v Dyson, Court of Appeal, 20 January 2025, Hanshow v VusionGroup, Court of Appeal, 6 June 2025, EOFlow v Insulet, Milan Local Division, 15 February 2025

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.