2025-08-13 - LD Hamburg - Speed Care Mineral v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ii - UPC_CFI_235/2025

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_235/2025
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v. Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC

Kernaussage: The Hamburg Local Division decided the costs of provisional-measures proceedings it had dismissed on 21 February 2025, awarding the successful defendant the full recoverable ceiling of EUR 56,000 at a value in dispute of EUR 500,000.

2025-08-13 - LD Hamburg - Speed Care Mineral v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ii - UPC_CFI_235/2025
🗂️Nur Fallakte
🏛️Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2025-08-13
🔢UPC_CFI_235/2025
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Alexander REETZ
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Ulrich BLUMENRÖDER
⚖️Generic
🌐English

notable
The Hamburg Local Division decided the costs of provisional-measures proceedings it had dismissed on 21 February 2025, awarding the successful defendant the full recoverable ceiling of EUR 56,000 at a value in dispute of EUR 500,000. It set out the framework: Art. 69(1) UPCA makes the unsuccessful party bear the successful party's reasonable and proportionate costs up to a ceiling unless equity requires otherwise; R. 152.1 and .2 RoP specify this for representation costs by reference to the Administrative Committee's scale; and R. 153 RoP governs party-expert costs by customary sector rates. Costs of the dispute are those actually incurred in the proceedings, in particular those in R. 151(d) RoP, while 'other costs' are costs not incurred in the pending proceedings but directly and closely related to them. Reasonableness and appropriateness are cumulative and individually assessed against the objectives of Arts. 3 and 14 of the Enforcement Directive as read by the CJEU: 'reasonable' essentially means 'necessary', judged ex ante from the standpoint of a reasonable and rational party, while appropriateness targets the amount, which must not be disproportionate to the value in dispute, the significance of the case, its difficulty and complexity, and the measure's prospects of success. On the facts the Division did not need to examine the one contested invoice, because the costs the applicant had not challenged already came to a multiple of the ceiling.

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren