1. Key takeaways
In PI-proceedings an application for the determination of costs pursuant to R. 151 RoP is admissible in the event that the Court of Appeal has issued a basic decision on costs pursuant to R. 242.1RoP.
Pursuant to R. 150.1 RoP, the determination of costs may be the subject of separate proceedings following a decision on the merits. Neither the UPCA nor the UPC Rules of Procedure expressly exclude a basic decision on costs in the context of PI proceedings. This applies in particular to the wording of R. 242.1 RoP and Art. 69 UPCA.
If a party applies in PI proceedings for the costs of the proceedings to be awarded against the opposing party and the court of appeal grants this application, this order cannot be reinterpreted as an order for provisional reimbursement of costs in the subsequent cost proceedings.
The costs are to be determined on the basis of the request for the determination of costs, as the court is bound by the application in accordance with Art. 76 (1) UPCA.
After expiry of the one-month deadline for the application for determination of costs (R. 151 RoP), further costs that exceed the application for determination of costs submitted within the deadline can no longer be claimed.
This follows from the wording of R. 151 (b) RoP and the purpose of the deadline to preclude further applications after the expiry of the deadline.
2. Division
Munich Local Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_2/2023; App_15954/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Cost proceedings
5. Parties
Applicant in cost proceedings: 1) Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., 2) Luxendo GmbH, 3) Bruker Nederland B.V.
Respondent in cost proceedings: 1) 10x Genomics, Inc., 2) NanoString Technologies Inc.
6. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 151, 242 RoP
UPC_CFI_2-2023-LD Munich-Decision-February-24-2025 Download
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.
