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

The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Gift this article