Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis NL (CFI, 1 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_123/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division fixed the costs recoverable by Samsung Bioepis NL from Alexion Pharmaceuticals for the provisional measures proceedings dismissed on 26 June 2024 (EP 3 167 888, Epysqli). The amount awarded is redacted in the published version. The decision clarifies how the reasonableness and proportionality of representation costs are reviewed where the ceiling is high (EUR 2,000,000 for a value of EUR 100,000,000).

Question

Which representation, expert and travel costs may the successful party recover, and must the court require detailed proof?

Decision

The application is admissible and partly well founded (paragraph 16). Costs must have been incurred or be directly linked to the proceedings, and be reasonable and proportionate, with « reasonable » essentially meaning necessary (paragraphs 19 to 22). The fees of two lawyers and two patent attorneys are allowed, the allocation of hours per stage being reasonable. Whether to require written proof is at the judge-rapporteur’s discretion under Rule 156.1 RoP (paragraphs 24 and 25). The costs of two English solicitors are disallowed, since their justification was too general and their cost exceeded that of the five other representatives (paragraph 26). The expert’s fees are allowed on the invoices (paragraph 27). The comparison with the German fee scale (RVG) is irrelevant (paragraph 29). Payment is due within three weeks of service.

Key points for practice

• Each additional adviser must be justified by a distinct role. A general explanation is not enough, even under a high ceiling.
• National fee scales are no benchmark for assessing costs before the UPC.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 151, 152.1, 152.2, 153, 156.1, 157, 180.1 and 221.1

Case law cited

MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinenbau, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_696/2024), Seoul Viosys v expert, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_363/2023), Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_16/2024)

Related decisions

• Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis NL, 26 June 2024, order dismissing the provisional measures.
• Samsung Bioepis NL v Alexion Pharmaceuticals, 1 August 2025, separate decision on the costs of the appeal.

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.