Timely payment of court fees at the Unified Patent Court

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has determined in the recent appeal in ORD_28113/2025 (Sumi Agro v Syngenta, 23 June 2025) that “court fees are considered paid on time if an order to transfer the due amount to the [UPC’s] bank account has been given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading or application, provided the payment is subsequently received in the [UPC’s] bank account” (ORD_28113/2025, Headnotes).  That is, the court fee need not necessarily reach the UPC’s bank account before the deadline for payment as long as a bank transfer order was made in time and the fees were subsequently received by the Court.

The appeal in this case arose from an unsuccessful application by Sumi Agro to revoke the preliminary measures ordered against it by the Munich Local Division.  The application was based on the assertion that Sygenta had not filed the subsequent infringement proceedings in time as the court fees were only received by the Court three days later than the deadline, which happened to be the next working date after the deadline.

In the final decision on this matter, the UPC Court of Appeal refused Sumi Agro’s appeal finding that the court fees were paid in time as the bank transfer was ordered on the last day of the relevant time limit.

Reasoning of the Court of Appeal

The UPC Court of Appeal reached its conclusion for a number of reasons.  First, the Court of Appeal argued that the party filing the relevant application should be able to control and easily verify the timely filing of the application and this would not be possible if the timely payment of the court fees depended on factors outside that party’s control (such as the time it takes for the bank to process the transfer).

Secondly, the requirement in Rule 371.2 of the Rules of Procedure that proof of payment of the court fees must be provided together with the relevant pleading or the application suggests that it is the transfer order that is decisive for the payment.  If the receipt of the fees by the Court were decisive, the party would not need to provide proof of payment as the Court would be in a better position to confirm the receipt of the fees.

Thirdly, if the timely payment of the court fees depended on the receipt of the fees by the Court, this would, in practice, unduly restrict the time limit the relevant party had for filing a pleading or an application.  This is because the relevant party would be forced to file the pleading or application earlier than the deadline to ensure that the Court received the fees.

Similarity with the EPO fail-safe arrangement

The rule for timely payment of the court fees determined by the UPC Court of Appeal in this case will be familiar to EPO practitioners.  The Rules relating to Fees at the EPO also provides that a fee will be taken to have been made if evidence is provided to the EPO that the payment was made through a bank, or a bank transfer order was given, within the period within which the payment should have been made (Article 7(3), EPC RFees).  The only difference is that for the fail-safe arrangement to apply at the EPO the bank in question must be one that is based in an EPC contracting state.  The UPC Court of Appeal decision does not place any limits on where the bank through which the payment is made must be based.  In fact, the decision emphasises that the Court operates in an international environment and in such a context bank transfer orders may not be executed on the same day.

The guidance of the UPC Court of Appeal provides certainty for users of the UPC system and helps ensure that, within the confines of the time limits that have been set, users can maintain full control of when they submit pleadings or applications for which court fees apply.