2026-08-13 - LD Düsseldorf - Sia Lightguide et al. v. Biolitec - UPC_CFI_256/2025

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division stayed the cost determination proceedings arising from an unsuccessful ex parte application for provisional measures until the infringement action and revocation counterclaim pending before the Munich Local Division are finally decided. It first held the cost application admissible: it was filed in time and no parallel cost proceeding was pending before the Court of Appeal, the identical application lodged there having been left unpursued once it became devoid of purpose. On the timing question the Court read the Court of Appeal's case law (SharkNinja v Dyson, Hanshow v VusionGroup) as favouring deferral of the cost determination for provisional-measures proceedings until the main action ends, and adopted the Milan Central Division's rationale in EOFLOW v Insulet that costs are to be settled in one decision reflecting the overall outcome rather than parcelled out stage by stage. It declined to follow Milan in rejecting the cost application outright, holding a stay under R. 295(m) RoP to be the less intrusive instrument that the proper administration of justice requires. The value in dispute of the underlying provisional-measures proceedings was fixed at EUR 1,000,000, the figure both parties treated as undisputed.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_256/2025