MUNICH CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker
come of the case. The court would, in principle, respect an agreement between the parties in this respect. A final decision, if necessary, would be taken after hearing the parties at the oral hear - ing. In the Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen case, it can be taken from the order of 27 February 2024 combining the isolated revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation that, at the hearing, the judge-rapporteur informed the parties that he intended to decide the value of the proceedings for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs. It appears that the par - ties were in agreement regarding the value of the proceedings being set at EUR100,000,000 for each action. The court did not have any objec - tions, and the value of the proceedings was set accordingly. 5.2 UPC Court Fees Compared to National Courts Court fees at the UPC differ significantly from those in German national courts, both in struc - ture and in absolute amounts. Generally, the court fees of German national courts are con - siderably higher than the court fees of the UPC. 5.3 Costs Awards Cost awards have been made by the CD Munich. In Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen (UPC 1/2023, ACT459505, and UPC 14/2023, CC_586764/2023, decisions delivered on 16 July 2024), the CD Munich found that the defendant, as the unsuccessful party, shall bear the legal costs incurred by the claimants to an amount of EUR1.375 million. From what can be seen, the parties had agreed prior to the oral hearing, as clarified at that hearing, that they deem an amount of EUR1.375 million to be reasonable and proportionate (per action for the revocation
action and the counterclaim). The court under - stood that the parties request a (final) decision on the costs to be awarded. Given the value of this case (set at EUR100 million; see the order to combine cases dated 27 February 2024), the corresponding ceiling for recoverable represen - tation costs (up to EUR2 million; see AC Decision on the Scale of Ceilings for Recoverable Costs dated 23 April 2023, D - AC/10/24042023_E) and the explanations of the parties during the oral hearing, the CD Munich had no reason to doubt that the number agreed between the par - ties was indeed reasonable and proportionate. It decided accordingly. In NanoString Technologies Europe v Presi - dent and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_ CFI_252/2023, ACT_551180/2023, decision delivered on 17 October 2024), the CD Munich ruled that, in accordance with Article 69 UPCA and Rule 118.5 RoP, the defendant, as the unsuccessful party, and with the patent being revoked entirely, has to bear the legal costs of the claimant. 5.4 Damages The authors are not aware of any damages awards being made so far. 6. The Future of the UPC 6.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of the UPC It is rather difficult to identify advantages of seiz - ing the CD Munich as, at least for revocation actions, claimants do not have a choice. Only in exceptional cases is there a choice between the CD Munich and local divisions. Having said that, an advantage – or rather, a positive aspect, as there is no real comparison
25
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook