2026-01-05 - LD Hamburg - Xiaomi v. Nera Innovations - UPC_CFI_730/2025

1. In principle, a party is always entitled to be represented before the EPO by a legal representative and a patent attorney jointly, i.e. by two authorised representatives, Art. 48(4) UPCA. 2. However, appeal proceedings under Rule 220.2 RoP concerning a specific procedural issue do not require the involvement of more than one authorised representative, R. 151.1 R.P. 3. The upper limit of reimbursable representation costs cannot be used for the assessment of costs in appeal proceedings under R. 220.2 R.P. concerning procedural sub-issues. 4. A party to the dispute must always be allowed to participate in an oral hearing before the UPC with at least one natural person and to incur the corresponding travel expenses. 5. Even if a party is successful in proceedings for the assessment of costs under Rule 150 of the RoP, it must generally bear its own costs incurred in the cost proceedings.

Cost decision with notable headnotes: (1) Each party entitled to both lawyer and patent attorney (Art. 48(4) UPCA). (2) R. 220.2 appeal on procedural sub-issues does not require more than one representative — R. 151.1 ceiling not the benchmark. (3) Upper limit of reimbursable representation costs cannot be used for R. 220.2 appeal cost assessment. (4) Party must always be allowed to attend oral hearing with at least one natural person (travel costs recoverable). (5) Successful party in cost proceedings generally bears its own cost proceedings costs.