1. Key takeaways
No retroactive extension of time period for requesting costs under R. 151 RoP
The Court held that Rule 320 RoP, concerning the restitution of rights, is the lex specialis (more specific rule) and takes precedence over the general provision of Rule 9.3(a) RoP when a party misses a deadline and seeks to restore its right to request costs.
Strict Adherence to Deadlines
The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines before the UPC, particularly regarding cost requests. Failure to meet the deadline can result in the loss of the right to request costs.
Procedural Requirements of Rule 320 RoP
A request for restitution under Rule 320 RoP must be filed with the correct court (in this case, the Court of First Instance) and accompanied by the required fee within the stipulated time limit. Failure to comply with these requirements will render the request inadmissible. The Respondents' request for restitution failed because it was filed with the wrong court and submitted without the fee.
2. Division
LD Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_292/2023, ACT_567009/2023, APP_44953/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Request for reimbursement of costs
5. Parties
Applicant/Defendant: SES-imagotag SA
Respondents/Claimants: Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd., Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
6. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 320 RoP; R. 9(3) RoP
UPC_CFI_292_2023_LD Munich_October_11_2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
