UPC_CoA_113/2026 – WEPA v ESSITY
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Preserving evidence Facts 1. WEPA filed an appeal against an order for an evidentiary seizure and inspection by the Local Division The Hague. 2. WEPA was ordered by the CMS to pay an appeal fee of € 14.600. However, they argued that they should pay € 5.000. The JR 1. The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) rules that, until now, no value of the litigation in appeal has been determined. 2. In that case, the value in first instance will be taken as (provisional) value on appeal. 3. The JR states that, up to € 500.000, the court fee for appeal is € 5.000. 4. The JR orders the return of € 9.600. Comment 1. WEPA was prudent and first paid the wrongly indicated amount to make sure the formalities for valid appeal had been fulfilled and thereafter asked for a return of money. 2. That is a general rule in litigation: better be safe than sorry!
Full Decision Text
UPC Court of Appeal UPC-CoA-113/2026 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 27 July 2026 Patent No.: EP 3 289 139 **APPELLANT (AND DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)** WEPA NEDERLAND B.V., Swalmen, The Netherlands represented by Andreas Kabisch, attorney at law of the law firm Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Munich, Germany and patent attorney Dr. Ernst-Ulrich Wittmann and other patent attorneys of the firm Withers & Rogers LLP, Munich, Germany (hereinafter referred to as ‘WEPA‘) **RESPONDENT (AND APPLICANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)** ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG, Göteborg, Sweden represented by attorney at law Frank Eijsvogels and other attorneys at law of the law firm Hoyng Rokh Monegier, Paris, France and patent attorney Christian Devigny and other patent attorneys of the firm Hoffmann Eitle, Munich, Germany (hereinafter referred to as ‘ESSITY‘) **PATENT AT ISSUE** EP 3 289 139 **DECIDING JUDGE** This order was issued by Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur **IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE** Order dated 22 June 2026, issued by the Local Division The Hague in proceedings UPC-CFI-1103/2026 concerning the review of the order for preservation of evidence of 17 April 2026 **POINT AT ISSUE** Reimbursement of overpaid Court fees **LANGUAGE OF THE CASE** English **SUMMARY OF FACTS** 1. ESSITY filed applications for preserving evidence (R. 192 RoP) and for inspection (R. 199 RoP) with the Local Division The Hague. 2. In the order of 17 April 2026, the Local Division allowed the preservation of evidence, largely as requested. 3. Following WEPA's request for review, on 22 June 2026 the Local Division confirmed the order of 17 April 2026. 4. WEPA filed an appeal against the order dated 22 June 2026. 5. As instructed by CMS, WEPA paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees. **PARTY'S SUBMISSIONS** 6. WEPA argues the appeal fee should be 5,000 EUR. **REASONS** 7. Pursuant to R. 228 RoP, the appellant shall pay the fixed fee and, where applicable, the value based fee for the appeal, in accordance with Part 6. 8. According to Table IV of the amended Table of Court Fees on 4 November 2025, the fixed fee due for an appeal pursuant to R. 220.1(c) RoP as to an application for orders referred to in Art. 60 or 61 UPCA is 5,000 EUR. 9. The Court of First Instance has not set the value of the proceedings in the impugned order, but according to CMS, the (anticipated) value of the case at hand at first instance is 400,000 EUR. This amount shall therefore be considered when determining the Court fees (see UPC-CoA-68-72/2026 of 15 July 2026, Qualcomm v NST). In accordance with table V, in case the value of the action is up to 500,000 EUR, there is no additional value-based fee. 10. To conclude, the fee due by WEPA for its appeal pursuant to R. 220.1(c) RoP is 5,000 EUR. However, WEPA paid court fees in the amount of 14,600 EUR. It follows that WEPA shall be reimbursed. **ORDER** The Registry is instructed to reimburse 9,600 EUR to WEPA. Issued on 27 July 2026 Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur 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
- The value of litigation on appeal, if not yet determined, is provisionally based on the first instance value.
- The UPC Court of Appeal fee for litigation values up to €500,000 is €5,000.
- Overpaid appeal fees can be reclaimed if the correct fee is lower.
- It is advisable to pay a disputed fee to ensure appeal validity, then seek a refund.
Tags
- Appeal fees
- Costs
- Procedural law
- Court of Appeal