This article provides a practical guide to the UPC costs framework, drawing on key judgments and the latest procedural updates to help parties navigate the system with confidence.

1. The Costs Principle

The starting point is Article 69(1) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (“UPCA”): as a general rule, the unsuccessful party shall bear reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party, unless equity requires otherwise, up to a ceiling set in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Pursuant to Article 69(2), where a party succeeds only in part, or in exceptional circumstances, the Court may apportion costs equitably or order the parties to bear their own costs. A party should bear any unnecessary costs it has caused (Article 69(3)). In Edwards v Meril, the Court found that the patent as granted was invalid but upheld it as amended and also found that the patent as amended was infringed. In assessing costs, the Court found that an “equitable (fair) distribution of costs” requires Meril to reimburse 100% of Edwards’ costs in the infringement action and 75% in the revocation counterclaim.

The UPC generally does not award interest on reimbursable costs. Neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure (“RoP”) provides a legal basis for such interest (Edwards v Meril).

2. Court Fees

According to Article 70 of the UPCA, parties to proceedings shall pay court fees. This also applies to counterclaims for revocation (Irdeto v DJI). Court fees under Rule 370 RoP comprise two components: a fixed fee and, where applicable, a value-based fee, per the Table of Court Fees adopted by the Administrative Committee under Article 36(3) UPCA.

Parties must pay fixed fees for substantive actions at the Court of First Instance including, for example, infringement actions (€14,600), counterclaims for infringement (€14,600), and declarations of non-infringement (€14,600).

A separate category of fixed fees where no value-based fee is payable (Section III of the Table of Court Fees) covers revocation actions (€26,500), counterclaims for revocation (same fee as the infringement action subject to a fee limit of €26,500), protective letters (€300), and various other applications (Rule 370.4 RoP).

Parties must pay a value-based fee in addition to the fixed fee where the value of the proceedings exceeds €500,000 (Rule 370.3 RoP). The Court determines the value by reference to the objective interest pursued by the filing party at the time of filing (Rule 370.6 RoP).

Only one fixed fee and one value-based fee applies where an action involves multiple claimants/defendants or concerns a plurality of patents in a single set of proceedings (Rule 370.7 RoP, Irdeto v DJI and Dainese v Alpinestars). However, where defendants file separate counterclaims for revocation (e.g. due to misaligned deadlines), these are not “the same action” and a separate fee is due for each (Irdeto v DJI and Maxeon v Aiko). Similarly, case-splitting generates new court fees: for example, €20,000 was to be paid on a split counterclaim concerning two patents (GSK v Moderna).

Small and micro enterprises benefit from a fee reduction: pre-2026, SMEs paid 60% of regular fees; from 1 January 2026 the reduction was increased so that SMEs now pay only 50% of regular fees (Rule 370.8 RoP).

3. The January 2026 Fee Reform

On 4 November 2025, the Administrative Committee adopted amendments to the Table of Court Fees, related RoP provisions, and the Guidelines on determination of court fees, effective 1 January 2026. A general uplift was applied to address inflation because the previous fees were set in 2016. Other key changes include:

1. Infringement action fixed fee increased 32% from €11,000 to €14,600.
2. Revocation action fixed fee increased 32.5% from €20,000 to €26,500.
3. Preservation of evidence / inspection increased from €350 to €5,000.
4. Value-based fees on appeal 10% increase.
5. Provisional measures have new value-based fees to recognize the intensive utilization of judicial resources.
6. SME reduction increased from 40% to 50% reduction (i.e. SMEs pay 50% of fees).

The revised Table of Court Fees, RoP, and Guidelines apply only to actions and applications filed after 31 December 2025 (BTL v Lexter).

4. Reimbursement of Court Fees

Rule 370.9 RoP provides for partial reimbursement of court fees in specified circumstances such as a withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP. A reasoned application to the Court is required under Rule 370.11 RoP. The reimbursement scale is:

The headline change for 2026 is the reduction in the withdrawal/settlement reimbursement rate from 60% to 50% before closure of the written procedure (Sanofi v Amgen and Black Sheep v HL Display).

The relevant “application” for the purposes of the transitional cut-off is the application for leave to withdraw (Black Sheep v HL Display). Actions filed before 31 December 2025 continue to benefit from the old 60% rate (BTL v Lexter).

Practical examples from case law

• Sanofi v Amgen: Sanofi paid €225,000 in fees and following the withdrawal of its infringement claims, the Court reimbursed 50%. The Court also reimbursed Amgen 50% of its counterclaim fees following its withdrawal.
• Ona Patents v Apple: the parties withdrew claims before formal closure of the written pleadings but after they had exchanged all regular pleadings and the Court had issued an order for preparation for the interim conference (Rule 103 RoP). Given the stage of the proceeding, the Court reduced the reimbursement to 40%.
• Maxeon v Aiko: the Court refused reimbursement where the parties notified settlement after oral proceedings completed.

The right to reimbursement exists only in the situations listed in R.370.9 RoP and R.370.10 RoP; it is not a general discretionary power (Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen).

5. Recoverable Representation Costs

The successful party is entitled to recover reasonable and proportionate representation costs, subject to a scale of ceilings adopted by the Administrative Committee (Decision of 24 April 2023 and Rules 151.1 and 152.2 RoP).

The ceiling applies to each instance of proceedings regardless of the number of parties, claims, or patents (AIM Sport v TGI). Provisional measures and main proceedings have separate ceilings, and costs cannot be mixed or shifted between them (10x v Curio and Barco v Yealink).

The party seeking the costs bears the burden of adducing sufficient evidence. This might include invoices, proof of payments, an overview of billed and non-billed hours (at the time of submitting their submissions), and a (brief) description of the work performed (CooperSurgical).

The ceiling is a maximum, not the measure of the award. The successful party must still prove the specific costs were necessary, reasonable, and proportionate, which is fact dependent for each case (10x v Curio). From the perspective of a reasonable and rational party, the decisive factor is whether the measure that incurred the costs was objectively necessary and appropriate for achieving the legitimate object of the proceedings (10x v Curio). The focus of appropriateness is primarily on the amount of costs incurred and they must not be disproportionate. In particular, they must not exceed the value in dispute, the significance of the case, the difficulty and complexity of the relevant legal and factual issues, and the measure’s prospects of success. An ex ante assessment is generally appropriate (10x v Curio and CooperSurgical). Where there are a large number of representatives and co-representatives for one party, dividing the tasks among several attorneys and patent attorneys is acceptable (10x v Curio). Likewise, using paralegals can save costs due to a usually lower hourly rate (10x v Curio).

The successful party can recover court fees in full, and they are not part of the ceiling. Expert costs are also not capped, and the successful party can recover them to the extent necessarily and reasonably incurred (Rule 153). The Court generally bases compensation for costs of experts of the parties on the rates that are customary in the respective sector, with due regard to the required expertise, the complexity of the issue, and the time spent by the expert for the services (10x v Curio).

6. Interim Awards of Costs

A significant development in 2025 was the Court of Appeal’s guidance on interim cost awards. In Meril v Edwards , the Court held that it may assume the successful party will be entitled to 50% of the applicable ceiling and may order the unsuccessful party to reimburse that amount by means of an interim award, unless there are clear indications that the successful party in fact incurred fewer representation costs or that 50% of the applicable ceiling is more than what would be reasonable or proportionate in the particular circumstances of the case. The Court may also order an interim award of costs in proceedings for provisional measures (Align v Angelalign).

Some examples of interim awards of costs are below:

7. Key Takeaways

The UPC costs regime rewards success but requires strategic planning. The January 2026 reforms have increased fixed fees, tightened fee reimbursement on early settlement, and enhanced SME protections; all of which should factor into pre-litigation assessments.

Recent case law, particularly the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Meril v Edwards capping interim costs awards at 50% of the ceiling, has brought greater predictability to what successful parties can expect to recover and when.

If you have questions about UPC costs or patent litigation more broadly, our Intellectual Property team would be pleased to assist.