UPC_CFI_808/2026 – Eyesmatch v Google
- Court
- Local Division Mannheim
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Provisional value of dispute Facts The claimant sets a low value for the case, which with the result that it paid €7,400 on court fees. The JR Considering this amount to be clearly too low (given that the defendant’s products are sold throughout the whole UPC territory), the JR doubled the value and ordered the claimant to pay the higher court fee. Comment 1. Trying to keep the value of the litigation low not only reduces the court fees, but also limits your exposure to costs in the event of a loss, since the ceiling for recoverable costs is lower. 2. A very attentive JR (and/or Registry), which quickly picked this up.
Full Decision Text
1 Procedural order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 May 2026 concerning EP 4 184 443 B1 CLAIMANT: Eyesmatch Ltd, c/o Hermes Corporate Service (BVI) Ltd., 6th Floor, Waters Edge, Building 1, Wickham’s Cay 2, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands Represented by: Holger Stratmann, HOFFMANN EITLE DEFENDANTS: 1. Google Ireland Limited, Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, Ireland 2. Google Commerce Limited, Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, Ireland Defendants 1 and 2 represented by: Marcus Grosch, Quinn Emanuel PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent no EP 4 184 443 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division Mannheim DECIDING JUDGE: This order has been issued by judge Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur Local Division Mannheim UPC CFI 808/2026 2 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action – provisional value of dispute GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER The Court consider the Claimant’s estimated value of the infringement action (2 000 000 euros) manifestly too low, particularly since the alleged infringement concerns the Defendants’ mobile or computing devices in all 18 UPC Contracting Member States. According to the Court’s preliminary view the value of the infringement action should provisionally be set to an estimated value of 4 000 000 euros. The parties have submitted that they do not have any objections to the Court’s provisional assessment. Against this background the Claimant should be ordered to pay an additional value-based court fee in the amount of 17 200 euros (34 400 - 17 200 = 17 200). ORDER 1. The provisional value of the infringement action is set to 4 000 000 euros. 2. The Claimant is ordered to pay an additional value-based court fee in the amount of 17 200 euros. Issued on 22 May 2026 Daniel Severinsson Judge-rapporteurSven Daniel Severinsson Digitally signed by Sven Daniel Severinsson Date: 2026.05.22 10:01:15 +02'00'
Key Holdings
- Claimants may attempt to set a low provisional value for a case to reduce court fees and limit potential cost exposure.
- The Judge-Rapporteur (JR) actively scrutinizes the provisional value of a dispute, especially considering the product's market reach.
- If the JR deems the provisional value too low, they can increase it and order the claimant to pay higher court fees.
- A lower case value can reduce court fees and cap recoverable costs for the losing party.
- The UPC Registry and Judge-Rapporteurs are vigilant in assessing the appropriateness of declared case values.
Tags
- Case Valuation
- Court Fees
- Costs
- Procedural