LD Munich, August 6, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_1569/2025

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

A cost determination proceeding at the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich involves Niche Biomedical, Inc. (ANEUVO) as applicant and ONWARD Medical N.V. as respondent, concerning European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1. The case addresses the application of Rules 152.2 and 156.1 of the Rules of Procedure, Article 76 of the UPC Agreement, and the Administrative Committee's decision on recoverable costs ceilings.

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Thomas Kotzott’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Intellectual Property topic(s)

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Technology topic(s)

1 Key takeaways

A request to raise or lower the ceiling for recoverable costs must be clear and explicit.

A request to adjust the cost ceiling (Article 2(4) of the Decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 April 2023 on the scale of recoverable costs ceilings) is only deemed to have been made if it is clear and explicit from the request that a raising or a reduction of the ceiling is sought. This is based on the principles of Article 76 UPCA. The Court held that requiring an explicit request is a significant procedural principle, not a mere formality.

A request for an interim award of costs up to a specified amount does not constitute a request to raise or lower the ceiling for recoverable costs.

A simple reference to high incurred costs or a request for a specific interim reimbursement amount exceeding the cost ceiling does not constitute an explicit request to raise the ceiling.

A request to adjust the cost ceiling is procedurally barred once the decision on provisional measures is rendered.

The request under Article 2(4) of the Administrative Committee Decision of 24 April 2023 must be made as early as possible so the Court can decide before the interim procedure ends. It cannot be introduced after the main decision on provisional measures has already been issued.

Challenging the reasonableness of billed hours requires case-specific arguments; generic comparisons to other proceedings are not decisive.

The respondent argued that the hours billed by the applicant’s representatives were excessive compared to other cases. The Court rejected this, holding that the objecting party must submit case-specific arguments showing why the time spent in the current proceeding was disproportionate.

2 Division

LD Munich (Local Division Munich)

3 UPC number

UPC_CFI_1569/2025

4 Type of proceedings

Cost determination proceedings

5 Parties

Applicant: Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO)
Respondent: ONWARD Medical N.V.

6 Patent(s)

EP 3 421 081 B1

7 Jurisdictions

UPC

8 Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 152.2 RoP, Rule 156.1 RoP, Art. 76 UPCA, Article 2(4) of the Decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 April 2023 on the scale of recoverable costs ceilings

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]