Europe: The sky is not the limit

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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.

cleuver2.jpg

Jurriaan Cleuver


V.O.Johan de Wittlaan 72517 JR The HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Plasseraud IP says it is eyeing AI and quantum computing expertise with new hire from Cabinet Netter
In the fifth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the ‘Careers in Ideas’ network and how to open access to the profession
McGuireWoods’ focussed experimentation and disciplined execution of AI tools is sharpening its IP practice
Gift this article