2025-07-02 - LD Paris - Seoul Viosys v. Laser Components et al. - UPC_CFI_444/2025

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_444/2025
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division
Art:
Order
Parteien:
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v. Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.

Kernaussage: The judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division determined the recoverable costs owed by the unsuccessful defendant following the merits decision of 24 April 2025 in the infringement action UPC_CFI_440/2023.

2025-07-02 - LD Paris - Seoul Viosys v. Laser Components et al. - UPC_CFI_444/2025
🗂️Nur Fallakte
🏛️Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division• Order
📅2025-07-02
🔢UPC_CFI_444/2025
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd
Pauline DEBRÉ
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Laser Components SAS
Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
Helge VON HIRSCHHAUSEN
Peter KLEIN
⚖️Generic
🌐French
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division determined the recoverable costs owed by the unsuccessful defendant following the merits decision of 24 April 2025 in the infringement action UPC_CFI_440/2023. The Division set out the framework of the Administrative Committee decision of 24 April 2023: the scale of ceilings governs representation costs only, applies once per instance whatever the number of parties, claims or patents, and is no more than a safety net, so that the Court retains a wide margin of appreciation and may raise or lower the ceiling. A raise must be applied for and is confined to limited situations such as particular complexity of the case or a multiplicity of procedural languages, having regard to the financial capacity of all parties and to fair access to justice. Both applications were refused: the case presented no particular technical complexity justifying an increase, but the claimant had had to answer numerous procedural applications, so the costs were not reduced either. Representation costs were fixed at EUR 56,000, the private laboratory expert costs of EUR 28,000 were allowed separately as 'other expenses' under Art. 69(1) UPCA, and the EUR 50,000 interim payment ordered in the merits decision was deducted.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren