2026-02-27 - LD Mannheim - Irdeto v. DJI et al. - UPC_CFI_344/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_344/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Irdeto B.V. v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-02-27 - LD Mannheim - Irdeto
v.
DJI et al. - UPC_CFI_344/2025
ENGLISH:
It follows from Rule 370.7 RoP that if a counterclaim for revocation is submitted on
behalf of several defendants, only one court fee needs to be paid for that counterclaim. However,
if one of the defendants submits their own counterclaim at a later stage (e.g. because the
statement of claim was served much later), that defendant cannot rely on the fee already paid by
the other defendants. In this situation, it is not the same action/counterclaim in the meaning of
Rule 370.7 RoP, even if the content of the submission is the same. Therefore, a separate fee must
be paid.
routine
The Mannheim LD ordered Defendant 1 to pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation. Under R.370.7 RoP, if a counterclaim is submitted on behalf of several defendants, only one fee applies. However, Defendant 1 submitted its own separate counterclaim six months after Defendants 2-4 filed theirs. This is not the 'same action/counterclaim' under R.370.7, even if the content is identical. A separate fee must therefore be paid.
Stichwörter
ENGLISH:
counterclaim, court fee, Rule 370.7 RoP