Key takeaways
Cost decision following an order rejecting a preliminary injunction
A decision on costs is possible following an order rejecting an application for a preliminary injunction (PI), although the strict wording of R. 150 et seq. RoP provide for a decision on costs only following a decision on the merits. Art. 69 (1-3) UPCA provides for all proceedings that the successful party may recover its reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses from the unsuccessful party. Art. 69 (1-3) UPCA is not limited to proceedings on the merits. If an order rejecting a PI becomes final and proceedings on the merits are not commenced, to fulfil the objectives of Art. 69 (1-3) UPCA, an application of R. 150 and 151 RoP is justified. This is also the case, if proceedings on the merits are commenced but the grounds for rejecting the PI are not subject of proceedings on the merits (e.g. lack of urgency).
Division
LD Lisbon
UPC number
UPC_CFI_697/2024, ORD_68336/2024
Type of proceedings
Application for provisional measures, request for cost decision pursuant to R. 150 RoP
Parties
Applicant (in PI proceedings):
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Defendants (in PI proceedings):
1. Asustek Computer, Inc.
2. Arvato Netherlands B.V.
3. Digital River Ireland Ltd.
Patent(s)
EP 2 819 131 B1
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 62 UPCA, Art. 69 UPCA, Rule 150 RoP, Rule 151 RoP, Rule 211 RoP
LD_Lisbon_UPC_CFI_697_2024 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.
