ARTICLE
2 September 2026

Court Of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order On Application For Provisional Measures, UPC-CoA-61/2026

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

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.
Cost apportionment where success is achieved on only one of several patents at issue: The unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear costs specifically attributable to “its” patent (Art. 69(2) UPCA)
Luxembourg Intellectual Property
Benedikt Dellen’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Technology, Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Cost apportionment where success is achieved on only one of several patents at issue: The unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear costs specifically attributable to “its” patent (Art. 69(2) UPCA)

 

In the dispute concerning preliminary measures, two patents were at issue originally, EP201 and EP198. However, the applicant withdrew its request based on EP201 before a decision in the first instance was handed down. Subsequently, the court of first instance rejected the application based on EP198. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision – i.e. the decision only regarding EP198 – on appeal.

With regard to recoverable costs, the Court of Appeal held that costs may either be apportioned pro rata to the values of the two patents, or the unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear the costs attributable to the respective patent, depending on the circumstances. In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal decided that it could be assumed that, since the request based on EP201 was withdrawn before the oral hearing in the first instance, more costs were incurred regarding EP198. For this reason, the Court decided to order that each party has to bear the costs specifically attributable to the respective patent with regard to which they did not succeed.

Interim cost awards under R. 211.1(d) RoP are generally capped at 50% of the applicable ceiling under R. 152.2 RoP, and the Court may not award more than requested (Art. 76(1) UPCA)

Since one of two originally asserted patents was withdrawn, only 50% of the cost ceiling was attributed to the remaining patent, yielding a lower entitlement than the cap. The Court was further bound by the applicant’s own capped total request.

2. Division

Court of Appeal (Luxembourg)

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_61/2026 (appeal against UPC_CFI_1594/2025, Local Division Paris)

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal proceedings concerning a request for provisional measures

5. Parties

Appellant (Applicant in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance): SharkNinja Operating LLC

Respondents (Defendants in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance): Groupe SEB France; S.A.S. SEB; SEB International Service (SIS); Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 689 198

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 62 UPCA
Art. 69(1)-(2) UPCA
R. 152.2 RoP
R. 206 RoP

Please click here to view the full report.

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]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More