Key takeaways
Court fees are considered paid on time if the transfer order is given to the bank when lodging the pleading or application, provided the payment is subsequently received.
This interpretation of Art. 70(2) UPCA and R. 371 RoP ensures that the lodging party has control and can easily verify the timely payment. In view of R. 371.2 RoP which requires proof of payment to be provided with the relevant pleading or application, the CoA emphasized the relevance of the transfer order for a timely payment of the court fees, not the receipt date. Furthermore, the lodging party can use the full time limit, including the last day, to lodge the relevant pleading or application. However, especially due to international banking processes, payment orders might not be executed on the same day. Importantly, the payment must still be received in UPC’s bank account.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC_CoA_286/2025, APL_14947/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal concerning an application for the revocation of provisional measures
Parties
Appellants (Applicants in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance): SUMI AGRO LIMITED, SUMI AGRO EUROPE LIMITED
Respondent (Respondent in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance): SYNGENTA LIMITED
Patent(s)
EP 2 152 073
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 15.2 RoP
R. 213.1 RoP
R. 371 RoP
Art. 60(8) UPCA
Art. 70(2) UPCA
