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

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_40/2025, ORD_11300/2025), Judge Klepsch, judge rapporteur at the Hamburg Local Division, fixed the appeal costs that Alexion Pharmaceuticals must reimburse to Samsung Bioepis following the dismissal of its application for provisional measures based on EP 3 167 888 (dismissal of 26 June 2024, upheld by the Court of Appeal on 20 December 2024, ceiling of EUR 2,000,000 for a value of EUR 100,000,000). The amounts are redacted in the published version. The decision clarifies which items of appeal costs are recoverable.

Question

Which representation and travel costs incurred on appeal are reasonable and proportionate within Art. 69(1) UPCA and Rule 152 RoP?

Decision

Costs must actually have been incurred. « Reasonable » essentially means necessary, and proportionality is assessed ex ante in light of value, complexity and prospects of success (paragraphs 15 to 20). The hours of the lawyers and patent attorneys are accepted, including seven hours per attorney for the hearing, without further proof (paragraphs 21 to 24). The costs of two English solicitors, however, are refused: no specific activity is identified, and their cost exceeds that of the five representatives who actually filed submissions and pleaded (paragraph 25). Only one night’s accommodation is allowed, the patent attorneys having arrived the evening before the hearing (paragraph 26). The costs of the cost proceedings themselves are not recoverable, save for costs unnecessarily caused (Art. 69(3) UPCA, paragraph 27). Reimbursement is due within three weeks of service.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: fees of advisers who are not UPC representatives are recoverable only if their concrete contribution to the proceedings is shown, and each party bears its own costs of the cost proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1) and (3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 152, 153, 156.1, 157 and 221.1

Directive 2004/48/EC

Arts 3 and 14 (cited as « 2004/28 » in the decision)

Case law cited

Alexion v Samsung Bioepis, Hamburg Local Division, 26 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_123/2024), Alexion v Samsung Bioepis, Court of Appeal, 20 December 2024, MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinen, 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), Hanshow v VusionGroup, Court of Appeal, 6 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_618/2024).

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.