UPC_CoA_108/2026 – AIM Sport v TGI

Expert Commentary

Appeal fee Facts 1. In first instance, AIM filed an infringement case and a PI case. The PI case was discontinued and the infringement case was dismissed. 2. With respect to the costs of the PI proceedings, the Local Division Helsinki had deferred the decision pending the outcome of the infringement proceedings. 3. The Court set the value of the PI case at EUR 9.9 million and ordered payment of the ceiling of € 800.000 by AIM. 4. AIM argued that none of the appeal fees are applicable to its appeal of the cost decision in the PI proceedings. 5. It, however, paid the fee based on the value of € 9,9 million to be on the safe side and asked the Court/Registry if it was correct that in fact no appeal fee is due and if so to return the paid fee. The Court 1. The check of formalities by the Registry is not decisive. In the end, it is the Court that decides if the formalities are fulfilled. 2. The decision in the PI proceedings (R. 360 RoP: action has become devoid of purpose) is a final decision in the sense of R. 220(1)(a) RoP (see R. 363.2 RoP). So, you have to pay the appeal fee for an appeal under R. 220(1)(a) RoP. Comment 1. As I understand it, the decision is that if you appeal only the cost decision in a case (also in a PI case) that ended because the action was ruled devoid of purpose, you have to pay the full appeal fee based on the value of the case. This is apparently because the cost decision was part of the decision that the action had become devoid of purpose. Even if you only disagree with a part of the decision (i.e., the cost part), you still have to pay the full fee (here € 20,400). 2. However, to appeal a (separate) cost decision which is the result of cost proceedings costs only € 3,000, but this appeal is decided by the standing judge of the Court of Appeal. 3. I assume that an appeal against an order including the cost decision will be heard by the panel, also when one only disagrees with the decision about costs. I accept that you have to pay more for a royal treatment, but this is not encouraging efficiency in my opinion. 4. I think it would be efficient, if at all possible, to decide about costs in the proceedings itself, rather than necessitating a separate cost procedure. However, if you then want to appeal only the cost part, you have to pay the full appeal fee? Is it not better in such a case to return the appeal fee as far as it is more than EUR 3.000 for fairness/equity reasons? Or do we need a Rule change making clear that that in fee for appealing (only) a cost decision is always € 3.000.

Full Decision Text

Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court UPC-CoA-108/2026 ORDER 8 July 2026 EP 3 295 663 **ORDER** of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 8 July 2026 concerning court fees for lodging a Statement of appeal against an order disposing an application for provisional measures **APPELLANT (CLAIMANT AND COUNTERDEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)**: AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as ‘AIM’) represented by attorneys at law Ari Laakkonen and other representatives of the law firm Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP, Dublin, Ireland as well as David Por of the law firm Clifford Chance Europe LLP, Paris, France **RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)**: 1. TGI SPORT SUOMI OY (previously SUPPONOR OY), Espoo, Finland 2. TGI SPORT VIRTUAL LIMITED (previously SUPPONOR LIMITED), London, United Kingdom 3. TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, France 4. TGI SPORT ITALIAS.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Busto Arsizio, Italy 5. TGI SPORT MARKETING ESPAÑA, S.L. (previously SUPPONOR ESPAÑASL), Barcelona, Spain 6. TGI SPORT VIRTUAL UK LIMITED (previously SUPPONOR U.K. LTD), London, United Kingdom (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘TGI’) all represented by attorneys at law Dr. Henrik Lehment of the law firm Hogan Lovells International LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany, Dr. Matthias Sonntag of the law firm Gleiss Lutz, Düsseldorf, Germany and other representatives authorised to practice before the Unified Patent Court **PATENT IN SUIT**: EP 3 295 663 **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS**: English **PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES**: Panel 2 Patricia Rombach, judge-rapporteur and legally qualified judge UPC Court of Appeal: UPC-CoA-108/2026 **IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**: Date: 29 April 2026, Helsinki Local Division, Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance: ACT 551054/2023 (provisional measures proceedings, R. 360 RoP) **SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND THE REQUESTS**: 1. AIM filed an infringement action (UPC-CFI-214/2023) together with an application for provisional measures (hereinafter referred to as ‘PI’, ACT 551054/2023) against TGI. The Helsinki Local Division upheld TGI's preliminary objection and dismissed both the infringement action and the PI application for lack of competence and jurisdiction. 2. On 12 November 2024 (UPC-CoA-489/2023 and UPC-CoA-500/2023) the Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the Helsinki Local Division and referred the action and the application for provisional measures back to the Helsinki Local Division. The PI proceedings were subsequently discontinued. The Helsinki Local Division deferred any decision on costs pending the outcome of the infringement action. 3. On 29 April 2026, the Helsinki Local Division dismissed the infringement action and, in the impugned order disposed of the PI application (ACT 551054/2023). The Court set the value of the preliminary injunction proceedings at EUR 9,9 million and ordered that the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred before the Court of First Instance by TGI, up to the ceiling of EUR 800,000, be borne by AIM. 4. On 29 June 2026, AIM filed an appeal against the impugned order as well as against the decision dismissing the infringement action. **PARTY’S SUBMISSIONS**: 5. AIM argues that none of the appeal fees provided in Tables IV and V of the UPC Table of Court Fees (26 February 2026) are applicable because it is brought under R. 220.1(a) RoP and concerns only the allocation of costs in preliminary injunction proceedings that had become devoid of purpose. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, AIM has paid the fee applicable to an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP. The amount paid totals EUR 20,400, consisting of a fixed fee of EUR 14,600 and a value-based fee of EUR 5,800, the latter being calculated based on the maximum recoverable costs of EUR 800,000 set by the Court of First Instance. 6. AIM requests the Court or Registry to inform AIM prior to the expiry of the 14-day grace period as to whether the fees paid of EUR 20,400 are correct, or whether a further payment is required, or whether there should be a reimbursement of fees. **REASONS**: 7. The Registry's completion and validation of the formal requirements in the Case Management System should not be understood as a determination that all formal requirements under R. 225, 226 and 299 RoP, or any other applicable provisions, have been fully and finally satisfied. Rather, it signifies that the Registry has conducted its examination of the formal requirements at that stage of the proceedings. The Court remains entitled, at any subsequent stage, to raise questions, seek clarifications, request further information or documentation, and make inquiries concerning compliance with procedural formalities, the payment of court fees, or any other matter relevant to the proper conduct of the proceedings. 8. The appeal fee paid by AIM is both necessary and sufficient. As R. 360 RoP applies to applications for provisional measures (see Court of Appeal, 26 June 2025, UPC-CoA-328/2024, Ballino v Kinexon et al., para. 19), R. 363.2 RoP applies to this case. According to R. 363.2 RoP, where the decision is taken by the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 360, 361 and 362 RoP it is a final decision within the meaning of R. 220.1 (a) RoP. This means that the appeal is an appeal according to R. 220.1(a) RoP. According to Table IV of the Table of Court Fees AIM must pay a fixed fee of EUR 14,600 as well as a value-based fee according to table V, based on the maximum recoverable costs of EUR 800,000. 9. The impugned order does not mention Respondent 6 as a defendant. This contradicts the Statement of appeal. AIM shall clarify why Respondent 6 shall is involved in the appeal proceedings with regard to the PI case. **ORDER**: 1. The appeal fee paid by AIM is both necessary and sufficient. 2. AIM is invited to comment on the question why Respondent 6 is involved in the PI proceedings no later than 13 July 2026. Issued on 8 July 2026 Patricia Rombach, judge-rapporteur and legally qualified judge Case management decisions or orders made by the judge-rapporteur shall be reviewed by the panel, on a reasoned Application by a party (R. 333.1 RoP).

Key Holdings

• An appeal against a final decision, even if the action became devoid of purpose, requires the full appeal fee based on the case value.
• Appealing only the cost decision, when it is part of a final decision, still incurs the full appeal fee.
• A separate appeal against a cost decision resulting from dedicated cost proceedings has a fixed lower fee (€3,000) and is decided by a standing judge.
• The Registry's check of formalities is not decisive; the Court ultimately decides if formalities are fulfilled.

Tags

• Appeal Fees
• Costs
• Procedure
• Appeal
• Formalities

Related Cases

• UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Docket Navigator v Sumi Agro and Syngenta
• UPC_CoA_917/2025 – Merz v Viatris
• UPC_CoA_891/2025 – Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks
• UPC-COA-0000894/2025 – Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v bellissa HAAS GmbH
• UPC_CoA_012/2026 – Amazon v Interdigital