Case Law
Article 69: Legal costs

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 23/04/2024, AUDI AG (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI No.514/2023, ORD_12232/2024)
Example of decision on the request for security for legal costs by defendant: “The fact that the Plaintiff has its registered office in a non-EU country, i.e. in the United States, cannot be relevant, as this would be a form of a priori discrimination, based precisely on the nationality of its registered office/domicile, which is not provided for in any source of law.
No precise evidence has been provided as to the difficulty of enforcing UPC decisions on US territory. As this Local Division has already made clear in a previous decision, this Court only commenced its activities on 1.6.2023, so there is naturally no experience with the recognition and enforcement of the Court’s decisions abroad. In the United States of America, judgments of foreign courts and associated cost decisions can generally be recognized and enforced. It has not been submitted or is otherwise apparent that this could be different with decisions and orders of this court or is seriously to be expected. At the same time, the prerequisite for a successful application would be a demonstration that the financial circumstances of the other party give rise to fears that any claim for reimbursement of costs cannot be satisfied or that, despite sufficient financial resources, enforcement of a decision on costs appears to be impossible or fraught with particular difficulties.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division, Order dated 18/03/2024, Astellas / Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University (Case number UPC_CFI_75/2023 ORD_598255/2023)
Example of decision on the evaluation of the costs incurred by the successful party: “In order for the parties and the Court to assess whether costs incurred are indeed reasonable and proportionate and whether or not equity requires otherwise, the Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate. The same applies to any expenses incurred.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section, Order dated 30/10/2023, President and Fellows of Harvard College v. NanoString Technologies Europe Limited (Case number UPC_CFI_252/2023, ORD_574057/2023)
Example of decision concerning a guarantee claim: “In exercising its discretion under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP, the Court must therefore weigh the relevant facts and circumstances.
Against this background, it is for the party requesting a security order to bring forward facts and arguments why such an order is appropriate in a specific case. Accordingly, the requesting party has to make a “reasoned request”, whereby the burden of proof of facts generally is on the party relying on those facts (Article 54 UPCA). On the other hand, once facts and reasons in support of a security request have been brought forward in a credible way, it is up to the responding party to contest such facts and 7 reasons in a substantiated way, especially since that party will normally have knowledge of and will be in the possession of evidence in relation to its financial position and (the location of) its assets. Likewise, it is up to the respondent to argue that and why a security order would unduly interfere with its right to an effective remedy.”