Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 FEBRUARY 2026

LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1510/2025

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

Where a cost ratio has been determined, both parties are required to lodge, within the time limit, an application for a decision on their respective costs...

GermanyIntellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Failure to comply with the time limit for application for cost decision can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights

Where a cost ratio has been determined, both parties are required to lodge, within the time limit, an application for a decision on their respective costs, in accordance with Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure.

Failure to comply with the time limit for an application for a cost decision pursuant to R. 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP) (UPC_CoA_618/2024).

Inadequate knowledge of the law is not sufficient grounds for re-establishment of rights.

In principle, due care within the meaning of Rule 320.1 of the Rules of Procedure includes knowledge of the legal system and the relevant decisions, in particular those of the Court of Appeal. A represented party must assume responsibility for any fault on the part of their UPC representative.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from