UPC_CFI_1048/2025 – BTL v Lexter

Court
Local Division The Hague
Date
Outcome
Denied
Sector
Other
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Reimbursement of court fees Facts 1. The parties settled under R. 265 RoP. 2. The case was closed on 16 January 2026. 3. Two months later, the claimant’s representative asked for a reimbursement of 60% of its court fees. 4. The sub-registry sent an email to the applicant indicating that: a. the Court wonders whether it is possible to file such request after the case is closed and tends to think that it is inadmissible; b. moreover, no cost decision was requested and court fees are part of the costs; c. although the RoP do not mention a time limit, the Court considers, having regard to R. 151 RoP, that a time period of two months after the final decision is not reasonable. 5. The claimant objected and asked for a formal order. The Court 1. The Court decided that, once the case is closed, one cannot file further submissions but should first apply for the reopening of the case. The Court has then discretion to reopen or not. 2. Even if the request were admissible, the claimant has forfeited his right when he informed the Court that no cost decision was necessary, as court fees are part of the costs. 3. Moreover, two months is too late. 4. What other Local Divisions do (in different situations) is not binding upon this Local Division, although a harmonized approach is of course desirable. 5. The Court refused the reimbursement but granted leave for appeal. Comment 1. It looks like the representative forgot to ask for a reimbursement of court fees and therefore engaged in a desperate effort to correct this. Hopefully he will appeal so that the Court of Appeal can clarify once and for all that you must ask for a return of fees already with a R. 263 RoP or a R. 365 RoP request. (In due course, it would also be good to amend R. 370.11 RoP to reflect this.) 2. The sub-registry of The Hague already provided the applicant with some relevant objections and the Court found another one: the applicant did not ask for reopening of the case. 3. I appreciate all this creative thinking but, first and foremost, waiting two months is just far too long. The representative is, in my opinion, going to lose a possible appeal but maybe it is necessary before he can claim the amount from his insurance. 4. With respect to the latter: if he looked at the recent case law or previous editions of the Unfiltered, he would realize that he is only entitled to 50%, and not 60% anymore. It is one further reason to deny the request, although maybe a bit too formalistic…

Full Decision Text

Unified Patent Court The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1048/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 13/08/2026 Patent no. EP4146335 Claimant 1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich, Germany Represented by Tobias Wu ke Defendant 1) Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. c/ Larrano 7, San Lorenzo de El Escorial 28200 Madrid, Spain Represented by Alexandros Stavrinadis Proprietor/s BTL Healthcare Technologies a.s. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Reimbursement request after Infringement proceedings DECIDING JUDGES This order is issued by the panel, comprising: Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge-rapporteur Margot Kokke Legally qualified judge Samuel Granata **SUMMARY OF THE FACTS and POINTS AT ISSUE:** 1. At the request of the parties, the Court confirmed the withdrawal of the infringement action by panel decision of 16 January 2026 (R.265 RoP). The parties informed the Court that no decision on the costs was needed. This was noted and reflected in the order, reproduced below. The court: A. allows the withdrawal of infringement action UPC-CFI-1048/2025 B. declares those proceedings closed; C. orders that this decision shall be entered on the register (R.265.2(b)); D. declares that there is no need for cost decisions. 2. The case was subsequently closed, also on 16 January 2026. 3. On 10 March 2026, the representative of the Claimant uploaded a request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees pursuant to Rule 370.9(b) RoP (the Request) in the closed CMS file. This was only recently brought to the attention of the Court, pursuant to emails sent to the sub-registry of the LD The Hague. 4. On 10 August the (sub-registry of the LD The Hague of the) Court sent the following email message to the Claimant’s representative: “Your R.370.11 RoP Application filed in the closed CMS-file 1048/2025 on 11 March 2026 was recently brought to the attention of the Court, pursuant to your email enquiries. On 16 January 2026 a withdrawal decision was uploaded in file 1048/2026. This decision was issued by the panel after a mutual request thereto of the parties. Pursuant to a request for clarification of R.265.2(c) RoP, the Court was informed that no cost decisions was needed, and this was included in the final decision. The case was subsequently closed, also on 16 January 2026. The Court has doubts whether it is procedurally possible to file a reimbursement request in a file that is closed. Application in closed cases are not brought to the attention of the Court. See e.g. LD Dusseldorf decision of 8 June 2026 UPC_CFI_195/2025, where the parties requested the Court to lift the stay of the proceedings to enable them to file withdrawal and reimbursement requests. The Court therefore tends to consider your request inadmissible. Furthermore, the request materially does not seem in line with the communication to the Court that no cost decision was required, as court fees are part of the costs. A decision on the costs seems to include a decision on reimbursement of court fees. In case you did not agree with this, appeal should have been filed. Lastly, even assuming the request is admissible, your application was uploaded almost two months after the withdrawal decision was uploaded. Although 370.11 RoP does not explicitly state a time limit, it seems logical, also in view of considerations of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity, to require such request for reimbursement to be submitted within a reasonable time frame, and 'as soon practical'' after the final decision (see preamble 7 to the RoP). As court fees are part of the costs that are the topic of, for instance, cost decisions, such request should, after the closure have proceedings, have been filed within the time frame mentioned in R. 151 RoP which requires filing within one month after the final decision. Almost two months after the final decision is not considered reasonable. The court wonders whether an order is needed or if your application can be assumed to be withdrawn. Please comment.” 5. The representative responded by email of 11 August 2026 as follows: “Thank you for your below Email which I would like to address in substance. For the sake of clarification: the application is upheld and it is requested that an order be made. In detail: The waiver on a cost decision is unrelated to the reimbursement of overpaid court fees (UPC_CFI_8/2023, Edward Lifesciences v Meril, 18.7.2025; UPC_CFI_716/2025, ETRI v Hisense, 16.2.2026; UPC_CFI_195/2025 UPC_CFI_568/2026, Sanofi v Amgen, 8.6.2026). Rule 370.11 RoP does not stipulate a time limit. For this reason, the Local Divisions Düsseldorf allows that corresponding applications are filed after the action was withdrawn and the proceedings closed (cf. UPC_CFI_99/2024, UPC_CFI_392/2024, Ona Patents v Apple, 17.9.2025). The Local Division Munich (i.e., at least the panel of Judge Zigann) follows this practice (e.g. UPC_CFI_801/2024 (Belparts v IMI). Moreover, the Preamble (item 7) does not relate to the reimbursement of overpaid court fees (but only to decisions on damages and costs). The Rules of Procedure clearly distinguish between both situations (R. 151 RoP on the one hand and R. 370.11 RoP on the other). In the decisions issued so far, the Court of First Instance has followed this distinction and treated these applications separately (UPC_CFI_8/2023, Edward Lifesciences v Meril, 18.7.2025; UPC_CFI_716/2025, ETRI v Hisense, 16.2.2026; UPC_CFI_195/2025 UPC_CFI_568/2026, Sanofi v Amgen, 8.6.2026). Most importantly: a parallel case by the same parties was pending before the LD Hamburg (Case UPC-CFI-0001049/2025). The timeline is almost identical to the present matter and the court fees were reimbursed as requested: It is kindly requested to take this situation into account when deciding on the application. A harmonized approach by the Court of First Instance is in the interest of the users of the system. For the sake of precaution a request pursuant to R.320 RoP will nevertheless be filed by the end of this week unless the JR reconsiders the situation in light of the above.” **GROUNDS** 6. The Court considers the application inadmissible. Even if it were admissible, it is dismissed. The reasons for this are the following. 7. The present case ended because the parties settled the case in an early phase; a statement of defense was not yet filed. The Court received an application pursuant to R.265.1 RoP, which was filed by claimant (defendants consented). R.265.2 RoP requires the Court, when making the withdrawal decision, to declare the proceedings closed and issue a cost decision. This was done (see 1 and 2 above). As no cost decision was needed, there was no need to set the value of the proceedings. The case was closed on 16 January 2026. According to R.371.11 RoP, a party seeking reimbursement of court fees under paragraphs 9 and 10 shall lodge a reasoned application for reimbursement to the Court. If a case is temporarily or permanently closed, for instance due to a stay or because the proceedings have ended, it is not possible to file further submissions/applications in such case, even if the CMS technically permits this. Such filing will not be considered by the Court. In case a party wants to file a further submission, it first must ask for reopening of the case (on which the Court has to decide, at its discretion). Reference is made to a decision of the LD Dusseldorf of 8 June 2026. There, the case was stayed and the parties requested the Court to lift the stay of the proceedings to enable them to file withdrawal and reimbursement requests. In these proceedings, no request for reopening the case was filed. Already from that point of view, the Request must be dismissed or disregarded as inadmissible. Only in specific circumstances as envisaged in the Rules of Procedure, for instance when the successful party wishes to enforce the decision or when there is a clerical error in the decision, may a party file submissions in an already closed case file. However, in such circumstances the closure of the case was not mandated by the Rules of Procedure nor was such closure ordered by a specific order in the operative part of a court decision. 8. Even if the Request would be admissible from a procedural point of view, Claimant has forfeited its right to request reimbursement of court fees because parties informed the Court that no decision on costs was needed, which was mentioned as such in the withdrawal decision (see 1. above). Court fees are part of the costs (see R.150.1 and 151(d) RoP). 9. But also, in case the Request were admissible and the right to seek reimbursement had not been forfeited, filing it almost two months after the closure of the proceedings is not reasonable. It is also inconsistent with the expedited nature of UPC proceedings. Although R. 370.11 RoP does not expressly prescribe a time limit, considerations of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity require such request for reimbursement to be submitted within a reasonable period and as soon as practicable after the final decision (see Preamble 7 to the RoP, last sentence). Since court fees form part of the costs addressed, for example, in cost decisions, such a request should have been filed after closure of the proceedings within the period set out in Rule 151 RoP, namely within one month of the final decision. Filing almost two months after the closure is therefore too late. A different approach would mean that reimbursement requests could be filed in closed proceedings indefinitely, without any time limit. Alternatively, national limitation periods might apply, which would be undesirable from the viewpoint of a unified application of the law. 10. The decisions taken by other local divisions of the UPC to which Claimant refers in its reply of 11 August 2026, cited in 5 above, do not change the above assessment. No decision on admissibility was taken in any of those cases. In several cases referred to, the reimbursement application was filed shortly (a few days) after the withdrawal decision was taken and was simply granted without addressing the admissibility thereof. In the cited Belparts case (not published), the request was withdrawn after comments of the JR (admittedly on a different issue, namely that the new reimbursement rules do not envisage any reimbursement once the written phase has ended), so no conclusions may be drawn from this. Similarly, in the LD Hamburg decision in a case parallel to this one, no explicit decision was taken on admissibility. Some decisions referred to do not support Claimant’s position at all. These decisions thus do not indicate a ‘practice’ of the UPC. Although a harmonised approach by the UPC is desirable, decisions of other local divisions, are not binding on this local division. To improve harmonisation, however, the Claimant may appeal this decision. Leave to appeal is granted. **ORDER** The court: 1. declares the reimbursement request inadmissible; 2. grants leave to appeal this decision pursuant to 220.2 RoP. Brinkman, presiding judge Granata, legally qualified judge Kokke, judge rapporteur For the Deputy Registrar, clerk

Key Holdings

  • Requests for court fee reimbursement must be made before a case is closed, or the case must be formally reopened.
  • Failing to request a cost decision at the appropriate time can lead to forfeiture of the right to reimbursement.
  • A two-month delay after case closure is generally considered too late for such requests.
  • Court fees are considered part of the overall costs.

Tags

  • Costs
  • Court Fees
  • Procedural
  • Settlement
  • Time Limits

Related Cases

View original decision