WEPA NEDERLAND v ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG (CoA, 27 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a case management order of 27 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_113/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal instructs the Registry to reimburse EUR 9,600 to WEPA Nederland, which had paid EUR 14,600 in fees for its appeal against the order of The Hague Local Division of 22 June 2026 confirming, on review, preservation of evidence measures obtained by Essity Hygiene and Health (EP 3 289 139). The order clarifies the fee due for an appeal against an order referred to in Art. 60 UPCA.

Question

What fee is due for an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP against a preservation of evidence order that did not set the value of the proceedings?

Decision

The fixed fee for an appeal against an order referred to in Art. 60 or 61 UPCA is EUR 5,000 under Table IV of the Table of Court Fees as amended on 4 November 2025 (paragraph 8). Since the order under appeal does not set the value of the proceedings, the anticipated value of EUR 400,000 recorded in the case management system triggers no value-based fee under Table V (paragraph 9). WEPA, which had paid the amount indicated by that system, is entitled to reimbursement of the overpayment (paragraph 10).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an appellant should check the fee calculated by the case management system and may recover any overpayment.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 60 and 61

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 199, 220.1(c), 228 and 333.1

Table of Court Fees

Tables IV and V (as amended on 4 November 2025)

Case law cited

Qualcomm v Network System, Court of Appeal, 15 July 2026

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.