Home » UPC decisions » Luxembourg Court of Appeal » Court of Appeal, June 29, 2026, Denies Leave to Appeal Cost Decision

Court of Appeal, June 29, 2026, Denies Leave to Appeal Cost Decision

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

This limited review is justified because the first-instance judge-rapporteur, who decides on costs in writing under R. 156.2 RoP, has managed the case throughout and is best positioned to assess them. The Court of Appeal confirmed this standard is consistent with its established case law (Tiroler vs SSAB).

The successful party can recover reasonable representation costs (R. 152.1 RoP) up to a ceiling set by a scale based on the case value (R. 152.2 RoP). An award of EUR 300,000 was deemed proportionate as it was well below the EUR 600,000 ceiling for a case valued at EUR 5 million.

The unsuccessful party failed to demonstrate that the first-instance court erred in finding the successful party’s costs, including those from a local law firm branch, were essential for the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal noted approvingly that the first-instance court had already reduced the successful party’s initial claim by excluding costs that were unascertainable, related to separate proceedings, or incurred post-conclusion.

Division

Court of Appeal

UPC number

UPC CoA 051/2026

Type of proceedings

Application for leave to appeal a cost decision

Parties

Applicant (for leave to appeal): Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Respondent: Microsoft Corporation

Patent(s)

EP 2 671 173

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 69(1) and (3) UPCA, R. 151 RoP, R. 152.1 RoP, R. 152.2 RoP, R. 156.2 RoP, R. 221 RoP, R. 370.6 RoP


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field