Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 10 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 10 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1110/2025 and UPC_CFI_1111/2025), in German, the Düsseldorf Local Division assesses the costs owed by Seoul Viosys to expert e-Commerce and expert klein following the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 2 October 2025, which had set aside the infringement decision on EP 3 926 698 B1 and ordered Seoul Viosys to bear the costs of both instances. It orders repayment of the sums paid under the first cost decision, awards the agreed first-instance costs and halves the appeal costs claimed. The decision clarifies what happens to costs paid under a decision later reversed.

Question

Can sums paid under a cost decision that lost its basis on appeal be recovered in the new cost assessment, and does the parties’ agreement on first-instance costs extend to the appeal?

Decision

Only reasonable and proportionate costs actually incurred are recoverable, up to the ceiling (paragraphs 14 to 19). The parties’ agreement setting first-instance representation costs at EUR 100,000 is applied (paragraph 21). As the cost decision reversed on appeal lost its basis, the sums already paid are recoverable in the new proceedings: EUR 31,982.85 to each defendant and EUR 51,112.73 to expert klein (paragraphs 23 and 24). The agreement does not cover the appeal, for which only costs actually incurred are assessed (paragraphs 25 and 26): the undisputed fees of lawyers and patent attorneys are allowed (EUR 59,975.95), but only half the travel costs, a parallel case having been heard at the same time (paragraphs 27 and 28). Of EUR 122,000 claimed, EUR 61,019.47 is awarded, payable by 24 April 2026.

Key points for practice

• An agreement on first-instance costs does not extend to the appeal unless expressly provided.
• Costs shared by cases heard together are apportioned between them.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 152, 157 and 221

Case law cited

Seoul Viosys v expert, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 April 2025, MSG Maschinenbau v EJP Maschinen, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025, Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2025, Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 July 2025, 10x Genomics v Curio, Düsseldorf Local Division, 2 February 2026, CJEU, 28 July 2016, United Video Properties v Telenet, C-57/15

Related decisions

• expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys, 2 October 2025, Court of Appeal judgment ordering Seoul Viosys to bear the costs.

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.