LD Brussels, May 7, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2265/2025

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

Waiver of rights requires an explicit statement – prior admissions in first instance proceedings do not constitute a waiver (R. 150 RoP)

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy and Transport topic(s)

Key takeaways

Waiver of rights requires an explicit statement – prior admissions in first instance proceedings do not constitute a waiver (R. 150 RoP)

An acknowledgment by a party that the opposing party was the “successful party” in first instance proceedings does not constitute a waiver of the right to claim compensation as a “partially successful party” in subsequent R. 150 RoP cost proceedings. Waiver of any right requires a clear, explicit declaration from the right-holder.

Partial success and a cost set-off cannot both reduce the applicable ceiling — the “double-up” approach is impermissible

Where one party claims concrete costs to be set off and the other party’s partial success would normally reduce the applicable ceiling, both adjustments cannot be applied simultaneously. The Court maintained the full applicable ceiling and deducted the Defendant’s justified costs directly from it, avoiding any double penalty against the Applicants (R. 152(2) RoP, Art. 1(4) Administrative Committee’s Decision, Art. 69 UPCA).

Interpreter costs self-arranged by a party are excluded from recoverable costs of the proceedings

Simultaneous interpretation costs are only recoverable under R. 150 RoP when arranged by the Court pursuant to R. 109.2 RoP. If a party independently engages interpreters under R. 109.4 RoP, those costs are borne solely by that party and excluded from recoverable costs under R. 109.5 RoP.

The R. 151 RoP one-month deadline for cost applications runs from the merits decision, not the PI decision, where merits proceedings are pending

Where merits proceedings are initiated after PI proceedings conclude, the R. 151 RoP one-month deadline commences only upon service of the merits decision. A party may raise its cost claim as a defence in the opposing party’s cost proceedings without filing a separate application, in the interest of procedural efficiency (preamble 4 RoP).

PI appeal cost ceilings may be reduced for proportionality – a party’s own working-hour allocations can inform the cost assessment

The Court may reduce the appeal ceiling for PI proceedings below the standard level, guided by Administrative Committee Guideline 5(b) (PI value = 66% of standard value). A party’s own submission that urgency arguments constituted only a fraction of its total work may undermine the proportionality of a high hours claim on appeal (Art. 69(2) UPCA, Guideline 5(b) Ceilings Decision).

Division

Local Division Brussels

UPC number

UPC_CFI_2265/2025

Type of proceedings

Cost decision proceedings (R. 150 RoP) following preliminary injunction proceedings

Parties

Applicants: YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV

Defendant: BARCO NV

Patent(s)

EP 3 732 827

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 109.2 RoP, R. 109.4 RoP, R. 109.5 RoP, R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP, R. 152(2) RoP, R. 156(2) RoP, R. 353 RoP
Art. 69(1) UPCA, Art. 69(2) UPCA
Art. 1(4) Administrative Committee’s Decision on the Scale of Recoverable Cost Ceilings
Guideline 5(b) Administrative Committee’s Guidelines for the Determination of Court Fees and the Ceiling of Recoverable Costs

To view the full article please click here.

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.

[View Source]

LD Brussels, May 7, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2265/2025

Contributor

Key takeaways

Waiver of rights requires an explicit statement – prior admissions in first instance proceedings do not constitute a waiver (R. 150 RoP)

Partial success and a cost set-off cannot both reduce the applicable ceiling — the “double-up” approach is impermissible

Interpreter costs self-arranged by a party are excluded from recoverable costs of the proceedings

The R. 151 RoP one-month deadline for cost applications runs from the merits decision, not the PI decision, where merits proceedings are pending

PI appeal cost ceilings may be reduced for proportionality – a party’s own working-hour allocations can inform the cost assessment

Division

UPC number

Type of proceedings

Parties

Patent(s)

Jurisdictions

Body of legislation / Rules

Intellectual Property

Contributor

Germany