2025-04-07 - LD Milan - Dainese v. Alpinestars - UPC_CFI_472/2024

Rule 263, para. 3, RoP applies both in cases where a) the claimant limits the relief sought (petitum), for example by reducing the relief sought (e.g. injunction or damages); and b) the claimant limits the cause of action (causa petendi), for example after starting the proceedings to protect a plurality of patents, then it renounces one of them. Differently from rule 265 RoP, rule 263 RoP does not provide the regulation of the proceeding costs, because the proceedings continue against the defendant in relation to other claims. This solution doesn’t go against the "losing party bears the costs"; principle, established by Article 69 UPCA: indeed, the unconditional limitation requested by the claimant will be considered by the Court regulating the costs decision.

The Milan Local Division granted leave to change claim following the invalidation of one of the two patents in suit. The Court differentiated between Rule 263 and Rule 265, clarifying the requirements and legal consequences. While allowing the unconditional reduction of the claim, the Court rejected the application for a partial reimbursement of court fees regarding the invalidated patent and postponed a decision on costs regarding that patent until the main decision.