2026-06-10 - LD Mannheim - Forestry v. Rematec - UPC-CFI-0000950/2026

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division fixed the costs recoverable by the successful defendant after the Court of Appeal had reversed the first-instance decision, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and largely allowed the infringement action, setting quotas for both instances. Three points of substance were decided against the paying party. Representation costs remain the party's own costs even where the invoices were formally addressed to its former parent company: the mandate and the resulting substantive payment obligation lie with the party, and settlement by a group company under an internal agreement, on an abbreviated payment route, changes nothing. An objection to how the costs were split between the infringement and the revocation proceedings must be substantiated and cannot be built on the outcome of the appeal seen after the event, particularly since the two proceedings raise overlapping questions. The costs of a party attending the oral hearing in person are recoverable, and an express order of the Court requiring attendance is not a precondition — here attendance was appropriate because settlement possibilities had been discussed and because a party's presence serves the right to be heard. Only the managing director's loss of earnings was refused, that work belonging to his own role, and representation by two patent attorneys at first instance and five representatives on appeal was held not disproportionate.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC-CFI-0000950/2026