2025-10-17 - LD Munich - Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril - UPC_CFI_404/2025 and UPC_CFI_405/2025

ENGLISH: I. An application for a cost decision constitutes summary proceedings (CoA UPC_CoA_618/2024, APL_57918/2024, para. 10). The judge-rapporteur therefore has broad discretion as to the procedure to follow (e.g. they can order evidence to be provided pursuant to R. 156.1 RoP, or may refrain from doing so), and as to the determination whether the claimed costs have in fact been incurred, and whether they are reasonable and proportionate. In this regard, the Judge-rapporteur respectfully disagrees with the findings of the Local Division Brussels in its order dated 25 July 2025 (UPC_CFI 131/2025). II. The extent of the examination of the reasonableness of the costs must be reasonable itself. If the value of the disputed costs is marginal compared to the overall costs of the proceedings, the judge-rapporteur may award them at their discretion. III. UPC representatives have a duty to represent their party as effectively as possible. The UPC representative acting for the relevant party has broad discretion in this respect. If a UPC representative deems it necessary for several representatives to attend oral hearings or preparatory meetings in an important legal dispute, on the basis that each fulfils a specific task, this must be considered reasonable and proportionate. The same applies if the UPC representative deems an in-person meeting necessary for this purpose, then it must be deemed necessary. IV. In this case, the above-average complexity of the proceedings and the total amount to be paid mean that the dispute over the necessity of multiple representatives and their method of involvement (in person or via video conferencing) is not worthy of detailed consideration when calculating the reimbursable travel costs. This is not to mention the details of their travel costs, which would only add a small percentage to the amount to be paid.

The Munich LD awarded Edwards EUR 771,649.56 in legal costs against Meril. Cost proceedings are summary with broad JR discretion (following CoA UPC_CoA_618/2024). Extent of examination must be reasonable itself — marginal disputes resolved at discretion. Multiple representatives and in-person attendance reasonable for complex cases. Munich JR respectfully disagrees with Brussels LD on evidence requirements.