UPC confirms right of parties to request costs up to ceiling as default

In mid-May, the Dusseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued their decision on costs in the infringement action and corresponding counterclaim between Franz Kaldewei and Bette. Notably, the action between Franz Kaldewei and Bette was the first ever UPC action to receive a decision on merits, back in July 2024. The decision on merits found the patent partially valid, and upheld the infringement action against Bette.

In the decision on merits, the Court set a ceiling of EUR 47,600 in reimbursable representation costs for the claimant in the infringement action, and EUR 28,000 in reimbursable representation costs in the counterclaim. In their application for costs, Franz Kaldewei requested the maximum possible reimbursable representation costs for the infringement action and revocation counter claim, along with EUR 9,350 in reimbursable court fees. Bette opposed this application, objecting that the representation costs were considerably too high in relation to the importance of the case.

The Court considered that in general, the costs in question must be cumulatively reasonable and appropriate, where reasonable essentially means necessary. The Court defined this as costs which appeared “objectively necessary and suitable for achieving the legitimate objective of the proceedings”. As the defendant had failed to substantiate their objection that the costs in question did not fulfil this criteria or were in any way disproportionate, the Court accepted Franz Kaldewei’s cost application in full.

Whilst the Court did appear to suggest that certain circumstances could justify a further limit on the costs reimbursable to a party in addition to the limits set by the Court in the decision on merits, the Court seems to confirm here that parties are entitled to request reimbursement right up to this limit, in the absence of any substantiated objection that their actions cannot be justified as necessary for achieving their objective.