Case Law
Rule 150: Separate proceedings for cost decision

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 29/07/2024, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd (Case/ Registry number: App_36394/2024, ORD_38645/2024)
Example of decision on the determination of costs: "(9) The determination of costs is the subject of a special and separate procedure (Rules 150 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure), which also includes a special appeal procedure (Rules 157 and 221 of the Rules of Procedure). Like most other proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, the proceedings for the determination of costs also begin at the Court of First Instance. The application for the determination of costs must therefore be submitted to the court of first instance and will be decided by the judge-rapporteur of that court. 10. 10 This also applies if the application is filed after an order or decision of the court of appeal and thus relates exclusively or partially to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The Rules of Procedure do not provide for a special procedure for the determination of costs following an order or decision of the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the general procedure of R. 150 et seq. RoP is also applicable in this case. If the proceedings were to begin before the Court of Appeal instead, no appeal would be possible against the decision on costs, as provided for in R. 157 and 221 of the Rules of Procedure."

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 03/04/2024, Juul Labs, Inc. / NJOY Netherlands B.V. (Registry number: APL_588425/2023 ORD_598226/2023)
Example of decision on the rectification of the party’s name and order for costs: “If the claimant has not correctly named the defendant in the statement initiating the proceedings, the Court may allow the claimant to rectify the error. The request can be granted if the defendant is not unreasonably prejudiced by the incorrect statement of name and its rectification. As a rule, there will be no unreasonable prejudice if, despite the incorrect statement of name, it must have been clear to the defendant and to the Court, based on the circumstances of the case, that the claimant intended the statement for revocation to be directed against the defendant.
“24. The concept laid down in Rule 118.5 RoP that the principal decision on the costs of proceedings is made in the final order or decision is in line with Rule 150.1 RoP, according to which it is only after the decision on the merits that the successful party may seek a cost decision, meaning a decision for the determination of the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party (Rule 150.1 RoP). This concept is also confirmed by the fact that the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs adopted by the Administrative Committee, which the Court must take into account when determining the reimbursement of representation costs, indicates ceilings based on the value of the proceedings as a whole (Rule 152.2 RoP).”