Europe: The sky is not the limit
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Europe: The sky is not the limit

This summer, the Court of Justice of the EU issued a ruling that dealt with the application of article 14 of the EU IP Enforcement Directive. According to this article, EU member states must ensure that in court cases, the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the losing party. While one could gather from this that the sky's the limit as far as costs compensations in IP cases go, the Court ruling teaches us there may in fact be limits.

It all started with a court case in Belgium, in which claims were made to stop a patent infringement. The claims were denied and the plaintiff was ordered to bear the fixed costs (€11,000) of the defendant, based on provisions of national procedural law. In appeal, the amount of the fixed costs was under discussion, the original defendant claiming that the national provisions of fixed costs were not in conformity with Article 14 of the Directive, and that the plaintiff should pay all costs incurred, amounting to €225,862.55, which is obviously much higher than the fixed costs.

Accordingly, the Court had to rule whether national systems of fixed costs are in conflict with Article 14 of the Directive. Referring to the common goal of the Directive, the Court pointed out that IP infringers must be discouraged from infringing IP rights, justifying high cost awards. At the same time, Article 14 of the Directive merely states that the compensation covers the reasonable and proportionate costs, which does not imply all costs, but only "at least a significant and appropriate part of the reasonable costs". As long as these particular criteria are met, national law provisions are allowed to impose an absolute threshold above which no costs are compensated.

In national IP practices such as the Dutch, where full cost awards are nowadays the rule rather than the exception, this ruling may very well be regarded as the beginning of a new trend.


Jurriaan Cleuver

V.O.Johan de Wittlaan 72517 JR The HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Mathys & Squire has filed a test case that the firm hopes will make UPC pleadings available by default
Multiple representatives and their teams can now work on cases using the online CMS, but not everyone can submit documents
James Lawrence, partner at Addisons, explains how he convinced the full Federal Court of Australia to back his client in a patent dispute concerning mining safety equipment
The deal will allow the companies to use each other’s patents covering 4G and 5G technologies, and other cellular SEPs
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Three lead IP counsel in the US, the UK and China share how they walk the fine line between building in-house competence and splurging on external lawyers
Mike Renaud, head of the IP division at Mintz, explains his business strategy and how the firm justifies charging higher rates
Sources say firms must build relationships with clients that transcend their connections to individual partners
INTA’s resolution on online marketplaces and appointment of Amazon’s general counsel follow calls for the association to take a direct position on internet fakes