1. Key takeaways
When an applicant withdraws its request for provisional measures on appeal, the action becomes devoid of purpose. The Court may then dispose of the action under R. 360 of RoP.
The extent of the legal review in relation to costs (Art. 69 (1) UPCA) where the action is disposed of according to R. 360 RoP
If an action becomes devoid of purpose because a party withdraws its main requests—having knowingly taken the risk that the urgent interest in those requests might lapse before a final decision—the party is considered the unsuccessful party. As a result, under Article 69(1) UPCA, that party must bear the costs of the proceedings. An exception to this rule applies only if it is established that the impugned order is based on manifest errors. However, if the withdrawal is due to unforeseen circumstances (not due to a materialisation of an inherent and foreseeable risk of a deliberate procedural strategy), equity may justify a different allocation of costs.
Security for legal costs
With regard to a real concern that a possible court order might not be recoverable, both own litigation costs and those of the other party must be considered.
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_328/2024, APL_36389/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal against an order for provisional measures and security for costs
5. Parties
Appellant (and Applicant before the Court of First Instance): Ballinno B.V.
Respondents (and Defendants before the Court of First Instance): Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
6. Patent(s)
EP 1 944 067
7. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 158 RoP
R. 360 RoP
Art. 69 UPCA
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.
