UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 1110/2025

·EP3926698: LIGHT EMITTING DIODE

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Verfahrensart
Kostenfestsetzung
Kategorie
Kostenfestsetzungen
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Technology
Semiconductor Devices
Sprache
Erste Entscheidung
10. Apr. 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-10
    Application For CostsÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The court partly granted the defendants' application for a costs order following the appeal court's reversal of the first-instance judgment and its award of costs to the defendants. The claimant was ordered to repay previously reimbursed first-instance costs (31,982.85 EUR each to defendants 1 and 2 for the infringement action, and 51,112.73 EUR to defendant 2 for the nullity counterclaim), pay first-instance costs of 111,353.33 EUR, and pay appeal costs of 61,019.47 EUR; the request for a higher appeal costs figure based on the first-instance agreement was rejected.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Recoverability of costs already paid under a first-instance costs order that is subsequently invalidated by an appeal decision amending the underlying costs liability ruling (R. 151 RoP)
    • Scope of a first-instance cost-sharing agreement: whether it extends to appeal proceedings
    • Assessment of reasonable and proportionate representation costs under Art. 69 UPCA and R. 152 RoP
    • Recoverability of travel and accommodation costs with supporting evidence
Dokumente
  • Entscheidung%20Kostenfestsetzungsantrag_signed%20%281%29.pdf2026-04-10DE
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Amounts already reimbursed by defendants under the original first-instance costs decision are recoverable in the post-appeal costs proceedings, because the appeal court's reversal of the costs liability ruling deprived the original costs decision of its legal basis.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 151 RoP; Art. 69 UPCA
  • The parties' first-instance agreement to recognise 100,000 EUR as recoverable representation costs (split 50/50 between the infringement action and the nullity counterclaim) governs first-instance costs and the defendants are entitled to rely on it.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: First-instance oral hearing agreement; R. 152 RoP
  • Actual appeal-instance representation costs of 59,975.95 EUR (attorneys' fees) are reasonable, proportionate, and below the reimbursement ceiling, so they should be awarded in full.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 UPCA; R. 152 RoP
  • Travel and accommodation costs of 353.33 EUR for the first instance are reasonable and supported by documentary evidence.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 151 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • The first-instance cost-sharing agreement should also apply to the appeal proceedings, entitling defendants to 122,000 EUR for appeal costs.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: First-instance oral hearing agreement
  • Repayment of costs already reimbursed under the original costs decision cannot be claimed via a costs application.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 UPCA; R. 151 RoP
Weitere Verfahren zum selben Patent
  • 2026-04-17UPC CFI 1299/2026Emporia UK and Ireland Limited gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2025-03-25UPC CFI 258/2025Emporia UK and Ireland Limited gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2024-12-13UPC CFI 677/2024Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen expert e-Commerce GmbH
  • 2024-12-06UPC CoA 764/2024expert klein GmbH gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2024-12-06UPC CoA 774/2024expert e-Commerce GmbH gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2024-01-23CC 3580/2024expert klein GmbH gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2023-10-13UPC CFI 363/2023Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen expert e-Commerce GmbH
  • ACT 579244/2023Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen expert klein GmbH
  • ACT 60376/2024Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen expert e-Commerce GmbH
  • ACT 7605/2025Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH gegen Mammut Sports Group AG
Weitere Verfahren mit denselben Parteien
  • 2025-05-20UPC CFI 444/2025Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen Laser Components SAS
  • 2025-04-28UPC CoA 380/2025expert e-Commerce GmbH gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2025-02-24UPC CFI 165/2025Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
  • 2025-02-10UPC CFI 101/2025Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
  • 2024-12-19UPC CFI 823/2024expert e-Commerce GmbH gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2024-12-19UPC CFI 824/2024expert klein GmbH gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2024-12-10UPC CoA 762/2024Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen expert e-Commerce GmbH
  • 2024-12-10UPC CoA 773/2024Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. gegen expert e-Commerce GmbH
  • 2024-06-21UPC CFI 238/2024Photon Wave Co., Ltd. gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
  • 2024-01-23CC 3555/2024expert klein GmbH gegen Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.

Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2025