DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO

UPC_CFI_761/2024
ACT 63992/2024
ACT .24515/2025

Ordinanza
Del Tribunale unificato dei Brevetti
di primo grado
adottata in data 29.7. 2025

KEYWORDS
Rule 150 – Separato procedimento per i costi della decisione ROP; Rule 353 – Rettifica delle decisioni e degli ordini- ROP.

OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H & CO. K.G., rappresentata dai rappresentanti Stefania Bergia e Giulio E. Sironi
- Ricorrente -
Contro
BHAGAT TEXTILE ENGINEERS, rappresentata dai rappresentanti Peter FitzPatrick, Joel Coles, Rajvinder Jagdev, Niccolò Ferretti ed Emanuela Gaia Zapparoli
- resistente -

BREVETTO IN DISCUSSIONE Patent no.
Proprietor/s
EP2145848 Oerlikon Textile gmbh &
CO KG

GIUDICE
Giudice relatore Alima Zana

LINGUA DEL PROCEDIMENTO
Italiano

Le vicende processuali
1. A seguito della decisione di merito n. 598484/2023 del 4 novembre 2024, adottata all’esito del giudizio n. 549585/2023 dal Tribunale a favore di Oerlikon Textile G.M.B.H. & Co. K.G. (di seguito solo "Oerlikon") contro Bhagat Textile Engineers (di seguito solo Bhagat), la prima ha introdotto il procedimento sulle spese (ACT_63992/2024), chiedendo la liquidazione a proprio favore.
Instaurato il contraddittorio, Bhagat ha depositato le proprie osservazioni in data 28 aprile 2025.
il Tribunale ha adottato la decisione in data 9 maggio 2025 (ORD_22179/2025), quantificando le spese rimborsabili a favore di Oerlikon in € 80.000,00.
2. In data 26 maggio 2025, Oerlikon ha depositato un’istanza ai sensi della ROP 353, di correzione di errore materiale: ha esposto in particolare che nella motivazione della decisione sui costo era stato indicato a proprio favore anche l’ulteriore importo di € 20.000,00 a titolo di onorari per la causa di merito, da aggiungersi agli € 80.000,00 dovuti per le restanti voci,
La somma finale, corretta, da liquidare a proprio favore corrisponderebbe dunque al maggiore importo di € 100.000,00, per mero errore cristallizzato in dispositivo in € 80.000,00..
3.Instaurato il contraddittorio, Baghat ha invece osservato che la locuzione litigiosa -"A ciò si aggiungono € 20.000,00 per la causa di merito."- costituirebbe un mero refuso, come chiaramente evincibile dall’intero passaggio motivazionale della decisione. Nella motivazione, infatti, espressamente le spese rimborsabili per il giudizio di merito sono indicate in € 65.000,00, oltre € 15.000,00 per la fase cautelare. Il dispositivo correttamente avrebbe dunque indicato l’importo complessivo in € 80.000,00 già decurtato della compensazione pari al 20% stabiliti nella decisione di merito.
Motivi della decisione
Principi generali
4. La presente decisione è adottata in ossequio :
(i) alla ROP 353, rubricata “Rectification of decisions and orders”-
(“The Court may, by way of order, of its own motion or on application by a party made
within one month of service of the decision or order to be rectified, after hearing the
parties, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips in the decision or
order”):
(ii) alla giurisprudenza dell ‘UPC ed in particolare ai seguenti passaggi motivazionali:
-“A decision/order of the Court should be read and interpreted as a whole, the
motivational part of the decision/order (grounds) being as much a part of the
decision/order as its substantive part (decision)” (Brussels - Local Division
ORD_19104/2025 ACT_18947/2024 UPC_CFI_582/2024, 8 maggio 2025);
-“According to R. 353 RoP, the Court may upon an application by a party made
within one month of service of the decision or order, rectify clerical mistakes, errors
in calculation and obvious slips in the decision or order. “Obvious slips” within the
meaning of R. 353 RoP are all incorrect or incomplete statements of what the Court
actually intended in the order or decision. In other words, the declaration of the
Court’s intention in the decision or order must deviate from the intention that existed
when the decision was made (cf. LD Düsseldorf, order of 20 November 2024,
UPC_CFI_368/2024, under I., Mannheim Local Division UPC_CFI_359/2023, 13
maggio 2025).
Il caso in esame
5. Nel caso in esame la domanda è ammissibile, essendo stata depositata il 26.6.2025, entro dunque un mese del deposito della decisione- intervenuto il 9 maggio 2025- a cui la richiesta di correzione dell’errore materiale si riferisce.
6. Tuttavia, applicando i principi richiamati al punto sub. 4, la stessa si rivela infondata. E ciò si deduce:
a. dalla lettura complessiva sia del dispositivo- ove è espressamente indicata la somma complessivamente liquidata in € 80.000,00- sia della parte motivazionale- ove chiaramente è ripetuto l’importo totale cristallizzato sempre in € 80.000,00;
b. dalla ratio decidendi espressa nella motivazione sempre della decisione sui costi ove:
(i) la somma di € 80.000,00 viene raggiunta sommando l’importo liquidato per la fase cautelare -pari ad € 15.000,00, e quello liquidato, in € 65.000,00 per la fase di merito-;
(ii) viene rammentato che i criteri valutativi sono quelli stabiliti nella decisione di merito, espressamente ivi richiamati e di seguito nuovamente riportati per comodità espositiva
“5. stabilisce il valore della causa in 750.000,00 Euro”;
6. stabilisce che le spese del procedimento sono compensate per il 20% tra le parti mentre per il rimanente 80% sono poste a carico di Baghat Textile Engineers”;
(iii) viene osservato che:
-“la causa di merito è stata preceduta da un order to preserve evidence concesso ex parte;
-il valore della causa è stato definito dal Tribunale in € 750.000,00 pertanto il limite massimo rimborsabile ammonta ad € 112.000,00;
-nel caso in esame, parte convenuta non ha contestato la validità del brevetto né ha negato la contraffazione. Quindi nessuna indagine tecnica brevettuale è stata compiuta in proposito;
-non sono state compiute altre attività istruttorie;
-il brevetto azionato è solo uno;
-le parti in lite sono solo due, attore e convenuto.
Si tratta quindi di un caso relativamente semplice, seppure tra i primi regolati dalla nuova Corte Unificata dei Brevetti (l’order to preserve evidence è stato il primo in assoluto e la sentenza che ha statuito sui danni provvisori, sulla pubblicazione e sulle misure accessorie tra le prime sul punto).
Pur tenendo conto del procedimento ante causam e del subprocedimento secondo la rule 262 A RoP, la cristallizzazione operata da Oerlikon, pari ad € 120.425,28, non appare proporzionata”.
7.Si deve concludere, dunque, che non vi sia alcun errore materiale contenuto nella decisione sui costi, rispetto alla quantificazione della somma finale liquidata a favore di Oerlikon in € 80.000,00, mentre la locuzione “"a ciò si aggiungono € 20.000,00 per la causa di merito." costituisce un mero refuso che non ha inciso sul percorso motivazionale e la cui mancata considerazione nel computo finale non costituisce un errore materiale, da emendare in questa sede.
8. Del resto, secondo i principi declinati al punto 4, ove la parte ricorrente intenda contestare invece nel merito le scelte della Corte, il rimedio non è quello di cui alla ROP 353 bensì dell’Appello.
9. La domanda di correzione dell’errore materiale, secondo l’istanza di Oerlikon, va dunque rigettata per le ragioni qui indicate.

ORDINE
Vista la ROP 353
Rigetta l’istanza di correzione di errore materiale per le ragioni indicate in narrativa.
Così deciso in Milano il 29 luglio 2025

Order details
Order no. ORD_32458/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_549585/2023
UPC number: UPC_CFI_761/2024
Action type: Infringement Action
Related proceeding no. Application No.: 24515/2025
Application Type: Generic procedural Application


Machine Translation


MILAN LOCAL DIVISION

Order
Of the Unified Patent Court of First
Instance
adopted on 29 July 2025
UPC_CFI_761/2024
ACT 63992/2024
ACT .24515/2025

KEYWORDS
Rule 150 – Separate proceedings for the costs of the decision ROP; Rule 353 – Rectification of
decisions and orders – ROP.

OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H & CO. K.G., represented by Stefania Bergia and Giulio E. Sironi
- Applicant -
Again
BHAGAT TEXTILE ENGINEERS, represented by representatives Peter FitzPatrick, Joel Coles,
Rajvinder Jagdev, Niccolò Ferretti and Emanuela Gaia Zapparoli
- Respondent -
PATENT IN
PATENT IN DISPUTE Patent
no.
Owner
EP2145848 Oerlikon Textile GmbH &
Co KG
JUDGE
Presiding Judge Alima Zana
PROCEEDINGS LANGUAGE
Italian
The proceedings
1. Following the decision on the merits No. 598484/2023 of 4 November 2024, adopted at the end of
proceedings No. 549585/2023 by the Court in favour of Oerlikon Textile G.M.B.H. & Co. K.G.
(hereinafter referred to as 'Oerlikon') against Bhagat Textile Engineers (hereinafter referred to as
'Bhagat'), the former initiated proceedings on costs (ACT_63992/2024), requesting payment in its
favour.
Once the proceedings were initiated, Bhagat filed its observations on 28 April 2025.
The Court adopted its decision on 9 May 2025 (ORD_22179/2025), quantifying the costs to be
reimbursed to Oerlikon at €80,000.00.
2. On 26 May 2025, Oerlikon filed an application pursuant to ROP 353 for correction of a material
error: it stated in particular that the grounds for the decision on costs also included, in its favour, an
additional amount of €20,000.00 in fees for the proceedings on the merits, to be added to the €80,000.00
due for the remaining items.
The final, corrected amount to be paid in its favour would therefore correspond to the higher amount of
€100,000.00, due to a mere error crystallised in the operative part as €80,000.00.
3.Once the cross-examination began, Baghat pointed out that the disputed phrase - "In addition,
€20,000.00 shall be added for the proceedings on the merits" - was merely a typo, as clearly evident
from the entire reasoning section of the decision. In fact, the grounds expressly indicate that the
reimbursable costs for the proceedings on the merits amount to €65,000.00, plus €15,000.00 for the
interim proceedings. The operative part should therefore have correctly indicated the total amount as €€
80,000.00, already reduced by the 20% compensation established in the decision on the merits.
Reasons for the decision
General principles
4. This decision is adopted in accordance with:
(i) ROP 353, entitled 'Rectification of decisions and orders'
("The Court may, by way of order, of its own motion or on application by a party made
within one month of service of the decision or order to be rectified, after hearing the parties,
rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips in the decision or order"):
(ii) the case law of the UPC and, in particular, the following passages of the grounds:
- "A decision/order of the Court should be read and interpreted as a whole, the
motivational part of the decision/order (grounds) being as much a part of the
decision/order as its substantive part (decision)" (Brussels - Local Division
ORD_19104/2025 ACT_18947/2024 UPC_CFI_582/2024, 8 May 2025);
-“According to R. 353 RoP, the Court may, upon application by a party made within
one month of service of the decision or order, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in
calculation and obvious slips in the decision or order. “Obvious slips” within the
meaning of R. 353 RoP are all incorrect or incomplete statements of what the Court
actually intended in the order or decision. In other words, the declaration of the
Court’s intention in the decision or order must deviate from the intention that existed
when the decision was made (cf. LD Düsseldorf, order of 20 November 2024,
UPC_CFI_368/2024, under I., Mannheim Local Division UPC_CFI_359/2023, 13
May 2025).
The case in question
5. In the case at hand, the application is admissible, having been filed on 26 June 2025, i.e. within one
month of the filing of the decision – which took place on 9 May 2025 – to which the request for
correction of the clerical error refers.
6. However, applying the principles referred to in point 4 above, the request is unfounded. This can be
inferred from the following:
a. €from the overall reading of both the operative part – where the total amount paid is expressly
indicated as €80,000.00 – and the grounds – where the total amount is clearly repeated as €80,000.00;
b. from the ratio decidendi expressed in the grounds for the decision on costs, where:
(i) the sum of €80,000.00 is reached by adding the amount paid for the preliminary
proceedings - equal to €15,000.00 - and the amount paid for the proceedings on the merits -
equal to €65,000.00;
(ii) it is recalled that the assessment criteria are those established in the decision on the
merits, expressly referred to therein and reproduced below for ease of reference
'5. establishes the value of the case at €750,000.00';
6. establishes that 20% of the costs of the proceedings shall be compensated
between the parties, while the remaining 80% shall be borne by Baghat Textile
Engineers";
(iii) It is noted that:
-“the merits of the case were preceded by an ex parte order to preserve evidence;
€-the value of the case was set by the Court at €750,000.00, therefore the maximum
reimbursable amount is €112,000.00;
-in the case in question, the defendant did not contest the validity of the patent nor did
it deny the infringement. Therefore, no technical patent investigation was carried out in
this regard;
- no other preliminary investigations were carried out;
-only one patent has been invoked;
-there are only two parties to the dispute, the plaintiff and the defendant.
This is therefore a relatively straightforward case, albeit one of the first to be settled
by the new Unified Patent Court (the order to preserve evidence was the first ever
issued, and the judgment ruling on provisional damages, publication and ancillary
measures was among the first on this point).
Even taking into account the proceedings prior to the case and the sub-proceedings
under Rule 262 A RoP, the crystallisation effected by Oerlikon, amounting to
€120,425.28, does not appear proportionate.
7.It must therefore be concluded that there is no material error in the decision on costs with regard to the
quantification of the final sum paid to Oerlikon in the amount of €80,000.00, while the phrase 'to which
€20,000.00 shall be added for the proceedings on the merits' is a mere typographical error that did not
affect the reasoning and whose failure to be taken into account in the final calculation does not
constitute a material error to be amended here.
8. Moreover, according to the principles set out in point 4, where the appellant intends to challenge the
Court's decisions on the merits, the remedy is not that provided for in ROP 353 but that of appeal.
9. The request for correction of the clerical error, according to Oerlikon's application, must therefore be
rejected for the reasons set out above.

ORDER
Having regard to ROP 353
Rejects the application for correction of a material error for the reasons set out above. So
decided in Milan on 29 July 2025

Order details
Order no. ORD_32458/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_549585/2023
UPC number: UPC_CFI_761/2024
Action type: Infringement Action
Related proceeding no. Application No.: 24515/2025
Application Type: Generic procedural Application