Key takeaways
The application for leave to appeal itself must specify why the appeal should be heard
The CoA held that an application for leave to appeal must enable the standing judge to assess whether the conditions for leave to appeal are met solely on the basis of the application and the impugned decision, taking into account specific case-file references contained therein. General references to written submissions are insufficient.
A manifest error justifying a leave to appeal requires that the impugned decision would probably have been different absent the manifest error
The CoA ruled that an application for leave to appeal that is based on a manifest error must set out that the impugned decision would probably have been different had the Court of First Instance not made the manifest error.
As a rule, the applicant in provisional measures proceedings may not admissibly lodge a cost application before the decision on the merits is issued
The CoA expressly stated that “[a]s a general rule, the applicant in the PI proceedings, may not admissibly lodge an application for cost determination before the decision on the merits is issued”.
Cost allocation and cost determination are strictly separate procedural stages
The CoA ruled that proceedings under R. 150 RoP et seq. are not a re-examination of which party is entitled to cost reimbursement under Art. 69 UPCA. Rather, the only issue subject to the cost proceedings is the question of which costs to which amount are recoverable. Accordingly, the CoA considered it a manifest error that the Court of First Instance deducted costs relating to an unsuccessful means of defence of the Applicants from the Applicants’ recoverable costs although the cost allocation decision did not provide for this.
Whether a respondent in cost proceedings may assert its own costs as a defence in the cost proceedings without filing itself a formal application under R. 151 RoP remains undecided
The CoA left open whether a respondent in cost proceedings may assert its own costs as a defence in cost proceedings without filing itself a formal application under R. 151 RoP. However, the CoA clarified that even if this was admissible, the time limits set out in R. 151 RoP must not be circumvented so that the time limit in R. 151 RoP would apply to the defence.
The ceilings for recoverable costs set by the Administrative Committee pursuant to R. 152.2 RoP are a safety net, not an automatic entitlement to reimbursement
The CoA emphasized that only the recoverable costs established in compliance with the principles set in Art. 69 UPCA are measured against the ceilings for recoverable representation costs whereby there is a large margin of appreciation for the Court when applying the safeguarding principles. The ceilings are merely the absolute cap on recoverable representation costs.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC_CoA_84/2026
Type of proceedings
Leave to appeal against a cost decision, R. 221 RoP
Parties
Applicants (and Applicants in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance): YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Defendant (and Repsondent in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance): Barco N.V.
Patent(s)
EP 3 732 827
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 221 RoP, Art. 76(1) UPCA, Rule 118.5 RoP, Rule 150 RoP, Rule 151 RoP, Rule 152.2 RoP, Rule 152.1 RoP, Art. 69(1) UPCA
