Key takeaways
Waiver of rights requires an explicit statement – prior admissions in first instance proceedings do not constitute a waiver (R. 150 RoP)
An acknowledgment by a party that the opposing party was the “successful party” in first instance proceedings does not constitute a waiver of the right to claim compensation as a “partially successful party” in subsequent R. 150 RoP cost proceedings. Waiver of any right requires a clear, explicit declaration from the right-holder.
Partial success and a cost set-off cannot both reduce the applicable ceiling — the “double-up” approach is impermissible
Where one party claims concrete costs to be set off and the other party’s partial success would normally reduce the applicable ceiling, both adjustments cannot be applied simultaneously. The Court maintained the full applicable ceiling and deducted the Defendant’s justified costs directly from it, avoiding any double penalty against the Applicants (R. 152(2) RoP, Art. 1(4) Administrative Committee’s Decision, Art. 69 UPCA).
Interpreter costs self-arranged by a party are excluded from recoverable costs of the proceedings
Simultaneous interpretation costs are only recoverable under R. 150 RoP when arranged by the Court pursuant to R. 109.2 RoP. If a party independently engages interpreters under R. 109.4 RoP, those costs are borne solely by that party and excluded from recoverable costs under R. 109.5 RoP.
The R. 151 RoP one-month deadline for cost applications runs from the merits decision, not the PI decision, where merits proceedings are pending
Where merits proceedings are initiated after PI proceedings conclude, the R. 151 RoP one-month deadline commences only upon service of the merits decision. A party may raise its cost claim as a defence in the opposing party’s cost proceedings without filing a separate application, in the interest of procedural efficiency (preamble 4 RoP).
PI appeal cost ceilings may be reduced for proportionality – a party’s own working-hour allocations can inform the cost assessment
The Court may reduce the appeal ceiling for PI proceedings below the standard level, guided by Administrative Committee Guideline 5(b) (PI value = 66% of standard value). A party’s own submission that urgency arguments constituted only a fraction of its total work may undermine the proportionality of a high hours claim on appeal (Art. 69(2) UPCA, Guideline 5(b) Ceilings Decision).
Division
Local Division Brussels
UPC number
UPC_CFI_2265/2025
Type of proceedings
Cost decision proceedings (R. 150 RoP) following preliminary injunction proceedings
Parties
Applicants: YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Defendant: BARCO NV
Patent(s)
EP 3 732 827
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 109.2 RoP, R. 109.4 RoP, R. 109.5 RoP, R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP, R. 152(2) RoP, R. 156(2) RoP, R. 353 RoP
Art. 69(1) UPCA, Art. 69(2) UPCA
Art. 1(4) Administrative Committee’s Decision on the Scale of Recoverable Cost Ceilings
Guideline 5(b) Administrative Committee’s Guidelines for the Determination of Court Fees and the Ceiling of Recoverable Costs
