UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 28, 2026

1 July 2026 (late published)

Court of Appeal, IPG v TRUMPF

PR_UPC_CoA_58/2026; PR_UPC_CoA_59/2026

Withdrawal of appeal

Facts

1. TRUMPF obtained injunctions and other relief against IPG in the Local Division Mannheim based on EP 2 951 625.
2. The Court also dismissed the revocation action.
3. IPG appealed but filed an application to withdraw (R. 265 RoP) before the formality checks were done.
4. IPG requested return of the full court fees.

The Court of Appeal

1. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal.
2. As TRUMPF was not yet part of the appeal (the Statement of Appeal had not been served on TRUMPF), hearing TRUMPF was not necessary.
3. There is no basis for a full return of court fees. IPG is only entitled to a 50% return.

Comment

The moment you appeal, you have to pay the court costs. So, even if nothing has been done, you only get 50% back. If you want to save the court fee, you have to make up your mind about appealing before the end of the appeal period! In this case, IPG appealed in order to have more time to decide whether they would accept the first instance decision or not.

2 July 2026 (late published)

Court of Appeal, X v Amycel

UPC_CoA_935/2025

Security for costs

Facts

1. X, a Polish citizen, lost preliminary injunction (“PI”) proceedings and thereafter did not show up in the case on the merits. This resulted in a default judgment by the Local Division The Hague.
2. X had not paid any of the costs he had been ordered to pay, and appealed. Amycel asked for security for costs.
    

The Court of Appeal

1. The Court of Appeal repeated that only the defendant or the respondent can ask security for costs and that, if a revocation is filed in answer to infringement proceedings, it is the claimant in the revocation case who is considered the defendant.
2. The Court noted that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to show that the opposing party is likely not able or willing to pay the costs and/or that enforcement of a cost decision will be difficult.
3. The Court noted the following four facts in this case:
   1. X is a private person living in Poland;
   2. X did not give any information about its financial position;
   3. X had not, until now, paid any costs;
   4. X invoked in previous proceedings financial hardship. 
4. The Court remarked that, in isolation, none of these grounds are reasons to impose security, but that the combination of all these factors leads to the conclusion that there is a legitimate and real concern regarding the practical recoverability of a future cost order.
5. The Court awarded half of the cost ceiling, namely EUR 28.000,00.

Comment

1. It is important that the Court (also) states: “In determining the amount of security, the Court must ensure adequate protection of the respondent’s interests while at the same time respecting the principle of proportionality and avoiding an unnecessary restriction of the appellant’s access to justice.”

2. However, we have to be realistic: the UPC is not a court where a small inventor or micro company can litigate. Enforcing a patent is de facto impossible without seeking financial support. An amount of € 28.000 may sound like a small amount but, in Poland, it amounts to a year’s salary for somebody who earns double the minimum wage.

    

2 July 2026 (late published)

Local Division Düsseldorf, OTEC v ANCA

UPC_CFI_1536/12026

Release seizure report

Facts

1. OTEC carried out an evidentiary seizure with the approval of the Court during an exhibition in Germany.
2. The expert handed in its report.

The Court

1. The Court released the report to the defendants only in order for the defendants to ask for a confidentiality regime.
2. The defendants insisted that the report can only be used during litigation but did not ask for a confidentiality regime.
3. The Court decided accordingly and warned OTEC to start litigation within the TRIPS period, which started on the date they had access to the report. 

Comment

If there is no confidentiality regime but the claimant can only use the report in the proceedings, what does that mean if a member of the public requests access? Does that mean that the defendant can still protect confidential information in the report with a request under R. 262.2 RoP? 

I have my doubts. I do not see an automatic implicit confidentiality obligation for the claimants. This should mean that the defendants cannot later ask for confidentiality. The conclusion is then that, even if I do not mind that the opposite party can get access to the information and that there is no confidentiality club, I should always ask for confidentiality under R. 262A RoP. It is then clear that all participants in the litigation are bound to confidentiality and I do not have a problem to ask for confidentiality (R. 262 RoP) when, for example, a member of the public asks for access after the litigation. 

3 July 2026 (late published)

Local Division Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign

UPC_CFI_723/2025

Penalty payments

Facts

1. On 12 February 2026, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against 5 of the 6 defendants, imposing a penalty payment of up to € 20.000 per day for continuous infringement, such as offering the infringing method.
2. On 20 March 2026, the applicants requested the Court to set the amount of penalty payment on € 20.000 per day and order payment of € 580.000.

The Court

1. The question is whether the publication of Angelalign on the internet and posting on Instagram and Facebook amounts to “offering”.
2. Normally, the penalty amounts as mentioned in the order are the basis for calculating the penalty. The Court may deviate in favor of the defendant for reasons of reasonableness and proportionality. The burden of proof of the justification of a lower amount is on the defendant. 
3. The burden of proof that the order has fully and timely complied with also lies with the defendant.
4. A penalty can only be imposed if the defendant’s fault can be established.
5. The term “offer” has to be interpreted autonomously. It has to be understood in the economic sense and not in the sense of a binding contractual offer.
6. Considering that the defendant had stopped many other infringing activities in time, the Court set the fine at € 49.500.

Comment

1. It is important for defendants to realize that, in main proceedings, they should make sure that the penalty payments are not extremely high (and maybe always make sure that the Court sets an overall maximum). I say this because the Court (rightly) states that the penalty sum awarded by the Court in case of non-compliance with the decision is, in principle, the sum which is mentioned in the order.
2. The second lesson is to really make sure that you comply with the order, bearing in mind that “offer” has a very broad meaning. So, also the posting of a “user manual” could be seen as an offer of the patented method and you therefore have to scrutinize internet and social media to ensure that nothing is left that could be seen as an “offer”. 

3 July 2026 (late published)

Local Division Düsseldorf, Ecovacs v Roborock

UPC_ CFI_604/2026

Application to produce evidence

Facts

1. The claimant lodged its Statement of Claim (alleging infringement) on 13 February 2026.
2. In the Statement of Claim, the claimant asked for the production of evidence (source code which regulated certain acts of the robot) and documents in case the defendant denied infringement.
3. In the Statement of Defence, the defendant denied infringement with a request for confidentiality and asked for dismissal of the request for ordering evidence.
4. The claimant asked for an extension of time because it would get the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence later due to the confidentiality request. 

The Court

1. The Court refused the request to remove the expert reports in the Statement of Claim from the proceeding because they are allegedly not impartial. 
2. It gave a preliminary confidentiality order (the lawyers get access) and urged the parties to reach an agreement on a definite order.
3. The Court cited the conditions for a successful R. 190 RoP request:
4. There is a fact that is relevant to the substantiation of the claim and the fact requires proof/evidence by the requesting party.
5. The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims; 
6. The evidence to which access is requested must be “specified” and lie in control of the other party; 
7. The other party’s confidential information must be protected;
8. Any order to produce evidence must satisfy the requirements of proportionality, equity, and fairness. One of the elements to be taken into consideration when assessing “proportionality” is the stage of the proceedings when the request to produce evidence is introduced.
9. The conditions were not met in this case: R. 190 RoP is not for the investigation of continuous facts but for producing evidence of substantiated, relevant and contested facts.
10. The Claimant got an extension for the days it took to make the confidential version known to its representatives. The defendant did not get the same extension because there was no reason for it.

Comment

1. The case shows that a R. 190 RoP request cannot be used as a fishing expedition and, although there is no precise timing for it, it can be too early, especially if you have not seen the defence yet.
2. It is reasonable to grant an extension of time for the period during which representatives did not have access to the confidential information. It is also logical that there is no reason why the other party should get the same extension. The period for its next written submission only starts after the extended period. So, there is no reason for a further extension for that party.

3 July 2026 (late published)

Court of Appeal, Rematec v Europe Forestry

UPC_ CoA_302/2025; UPC_CoA_305/2025

Filing for costs

Facts

1. On 27 September 2023, Rematec sued Europe Forestry for infringement of EP 2 548 648. Europe Forestry filed a Counterclaim for revocation.
2. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent.
3. Rematec appealed and the Court of Appeal revised the decision on 17 February 2026. It granted the injunction based on the auxiliary request.
4. On 17 March 2026, Rematec started cost proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
5. On 17 March 2026, the Registry of the Court of Appeal told Rematec that it should file cost proceedings in Mannheim. The next day, on 18 March 2026, Rematec asked to send its application to the Local Division Mannheim with 17 March 2026 as the date for the start of the cost proceedings. 
6. In parallel, Rematec filed cost proceedings directly in Mannheim on 18 March 2026.
7. The JR of the Court of Appeal refused the request under 5.
8. Rematec asked for a review of the decision of the JR.

The Court of Appeal

1. The request for review was only filed in one of the appeal proceedings (i.e., the infringement case but not in the revocation case) but was clearly also meant for the other. It was also filed in the other case after the Registry asked to do so. The Court accepted that the request for review was timely filed in both proceedings.
2. The JR was correct in its order. Cost proceedings, also with respect to the costs in appeal, have to be filed with the Local Division and it is the Local Division which has to decide whether or not the filing date in the Court of Appeal can be considered the filing date in the Local Division.

Comment

1. I note that the fact that you have to file in the Local Division was nothing new, but had already been clearly decided in a previous case by the Court of Appeal. So, this was a professional mistake. A further mistake was waiting a further day before filing in the Local Division. A third mistake was filing for a review in only one of the appeal proceedings. 
2. The latter mistake was repaired by the Court of Appeal.
3. The question now is what the Local Division Mannheim is going to do. Rematec decided to ask the Court of Appeal to send its application to Mannheim and maintain the date. However, this was refused. So, what is left is its application of 18 March 2026, but this is clearly one day late. If the Local Division Mannheim wants to save Rematec, it would have to hold (assuming that was requested) that it was clear that on the 17 March 2026, Rematec meant to apply for a cost decision in the appropriate forum but addressed it to the wrong forum. This intention would then have to be deemed decisive, as nobody could see the filing in the Court of Appeal as the wish of Rematec to give up its entitlement to costs.
4. This case shows that it is very important to follow the case law (certainly of the Court of Appeal)! There is a very simple (free of charge) way to do that: reading our “UPC Unfiltered” every Monday or listening to our podcast every Tuesday!

6 July 2026

Court of Appeal, Bekaert v Polidoro

UPC_CoA_29/2026; UPC_CoA_30/2026

Settlement

Facts

1. On 21 November 2024, Polidoro started an infringement action based on EP 2 037 175. Bekaert responded with a Statement of defence and a Counterclaim for revocation.
2. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Counterclaim and found infringement of claim 1.
3. The parties settled and asked for withdrawal of their claims with no decision on costs.

Court of Appeal

1. Granted the requests.
2. 50% court fees are to be returned to Bekaert as the withdrawal took place before the end of the written procedure.

Comment

I do not know if revision of the Rules will also lead to a different (and simpler) way of implementing a settlement. As suggested before, if parties do not want to use R. 365 RoP, a simple message by both parties to the Registry (which can also deal with the costs reimbursement) should be sufficient. On the other hand, R. 265 RoP has now been (mis)used for settlements for three years and everybody is used to it. It probably does not take a lot of time for the Court to deal with it.  

7 July 2026

Local Division Munich, Promosome v BioNTech

UPC_CFI_846/2024; UPC_CFI_485_2025; UPC_CFI_535/2025

Infringement / revocation

Facts

1. On 30 December 2024, Promosome started infringement proceedings based on EP 2 401 365. BioNTech and Pfizer counterclaimed for revocation.
2. The defendants BioNTech and Pfizer had cooperated which resulted in the vaccine against Corona. 
3. Promosome filed 25 auxiliary requests.

The Court 

1. The preliminary objection stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case because the infringement started prior to the start of the UPC and is ongoing. The Court, referring to the case law of the Court of Appeal, stated that it is competent even with respect to the infringement by attached embodiment 2b of which it is in confesso that it was only sold prior to the start of the UPC.
2. An exclusive licensee has a standing to sue. An exclusive licensee is somebody who is the only one entitled to use the patent. However, an exclusive license can be limited geographically or by field of use. 
3. The Court described the common general knowledge (paragraphs 77  105).
4. The Court then described the patent and interpreted the claims using Nanostring v 10xGenomics (UPC_CoA_335/2023), as well as further case law, and concludes that the method claim does not contain technical limitations because of a use feature or stated purpose. The case law of the Boards of Appeal referred to by the claimant in fact confirmed the interpretation of the Court, as it distinguishes between a stated effect in a method claim, which is the inherent result from the steps described in the method claim, and a stated purpose, which has a limiting effect of the claim (for instance a method “for producing alkali free glass sheets” limiting the claim to the production of such glass sheets). 
5. The Court remarked that the claim does not specify any degree with which the expression efficiency is to be increased.
6. The Court concluded that the granted claim 1 is not novel. The Court stated: “different passages in a document can only be combined if there is a clear and unmistakable teaching suggesting this”. 
7. D1 and D2 each take away the novelty. 
8. The Court cited the principles established by the Court of Appeal (see Meril v Edwards, UPC_CoA_464/2024) for dealing with the question of inventive step of the auxiliary requests.
9. The Court states among others:

205.  A claimed solution is obvious if the skilled person would have taken the next step in expectation of finding an envisaged solution of his technical problem. This is generally the case when results of the next step were clearly predictable, or where there was a reasonable expectation of success. 

206.  The burden of proof that the results were clearly predictable or the skilled person would have reasonably expected success, i.e. that the solution he envisages by taking the next step would solve the objective problem, lies on the party asserting invalidity of the patent. 

207.  A reasonable expectation of success implies the ability of the skilled person to predict rationally, on the basis of scientific appraisal of the known facts before a research project was started, the successful conclusion of that project within acceptable time limits. 

208.  Whether there is a reasonable expectation of success depends on the circumstances of the case. The more unexplored a technical field of research, the more difficult it was to make predictions about its successful conclusion and the lower the expectation of success. Envisaged practical or technical difficulties as well as costs involved in testing whether the desired result will be obtained when taking a next step may also withhold the skilled person from taking that step. On the other hand, the stronger a pointer towards the claimed solution, the lower the threshold for a reasonable expectation of success.

1. The Court considered the first auxiliary request not to be inventive and rejected the second one because of added matter.

2. With respect to combining claim 1 with claim 10 the Court remarked:

   241. In sum, both methods are presented as stand-alone, independent techniques and the skilled person will understand this accordingly. Put yet differently, the features of claim 1 of AR 4 (the two methods) each serve their own purpose; the skilled person does not understand them to functionally interact or have a combined effect (cf. UPC_CoA_71/2025, decision of 29 December 2025, VMR Products/NJOY, par. 81).

3. The Court concluded that the patent is invalid.
4. With respect to the infringement, the Court remarked that, apart from the invalidity of the patent, there is also no infringements because claimant has not sufficiently substantiated infringement and its experimental evidence is not suitable to provide the necessary substantiation.
5. The Court refused late filed submissions and reports but stated that they would not have made a difference.

Comment

1. BioNTech/Pfizer have (in record time) developed a successful vaccine against Covid. We have seen several biotech companies who scrutinized their patent portfolio looking for a possibility to also benefit from that (enormous) success.
2. The Local Division in Munich, with legal judge Kupecz (who was initially a Technical Judge in the field of biotech) on board, delivers a very detailed judgment and provides an excellent service to the parties (and to the interested reader). If you do not know much about biotech but you have become interested in this fascinating field after Covid, then read sections 77 to 105 of the decision.
3. I state a “service to the parties”. The Court could have simply concluded that the patent had to be revoked and that that was the end of the case. However, the Court motivated extensively that even if the patent would have been valid, the claimant did not substantiate (enough) that there was infringement. 
4. Furthermore, the Court correctly refused late pleadings and evidence but nevertheless made clear that it would not have made a difference.
5. Apparently, the patentee filed auxiliary requests with respect to the defence of dependent claims. As I said before, these claims are granted claims. This should mean that you do not need auxiliary requests. Of course, in the Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, you should make clear that and why you defend dependent claims, and which (combination of) dependent claims you are defending in case the main claim is found to be invalid. 

8 July 2026

Court of Appeal, AIM Sport v TGI

UPC_CoA_108/2026

Appeal fee

Facts

1. In first instance, AIM filed an infringement case and a PI case. The PI case was discontinued and the infringement case was dismissed.
2. With respect to the costs of the PI proceedings, the Local Division Helsinki had deferred the decision pending the outcome of the infringement proceedings.
3. The Court set the value of the PI case at EUR 9.9 million and ordered payment of the ceiling of € 800.000 by AIM.
4. AIM argued that none of the appeal fees are applicable to its appeal of the cost decision in the PI proceedings.
5. It, however, paid the fee based on the value of € 9,9 million to be on the safe side and asked the Court/Registry if it was correct that in fact no appeal fee is due and if so to return the paid fee. 

The Court

1. The check of formalities by the Registry is not decisive. In the end, it is the Court that decides if the formalities are fulfilled. 
2. The decision in the PI proceedings (R. 360 RoP: action has become devoid of purpose) is a final decision in the sense of R. 220(1)(a) RoP (see R. 363.2 RoP). So, you have to pay the appeal fee for an appeal under R. 220(1)(a) RoP. 

Comment

1. As I understand it, the decision is that if you appeal only the cost decision in a case (also in a PI case) that ended because the action was ruled devoid of purpose, you have to pay the full appeal fee based on the value of the case. This is apparently because the cost decision was part of the decision that the action had become devoid of purpose. Even if you only disagree with a part of the decision (i.e., the cost part), you still have to pay the full fee (here € 20,400).
2. However, to appeal a (separate) cost decision which is the result of cost proceedings costs only € 3,000, but this appeal is decided by the standing judge of the Court of Appeal.
3. I assume that an appeal against an order including the cost decision will be heard by the panel, also when one only disagrees with the decision about costs. I accept that you have to pay more for a royal treatment, but this is not encouraging efficiency in my opinion.
4. I think it would be efficient, if at all possible, to decide about costs in the proceedings itself, rather than necessitating a separate cost procedure. However, if you then want to appeal only the cost part, you have to pay the full appeal fee? Is it not better in such a case to return the appeal fee as far as it is more than EUR 3.000 for fairness/equity reasons? Or do we need a Rule change making clear that that in fee for appealing (only) a cost decision is always € 3.000.

8 July 2026

Court of Appeal, Angelalign v Align

UPC_ CoA_36/2026

Appeal of PI

Facts

1. Align accuses appellants of infringement of EP 4 346 690.
2. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted a preliminary injunction on 12 February 2026.
3. Angelalign appealed and asked for
   1. admission of the non-infringement arguments and an exhibit which were rejected by the Local Division as late filed;
   2. admission in appeal of a new video and an accompanying witness statement.
       

The Court of Appeal

1. The Court of Appeal discussed the patent and concluded that the object of the invention is to improve the efficiency of treatment planning.
2. The Court of Appeal formulated the skilled person as a team to which the software designer belongs. 
3. The Court interpreted the features of the claim after citing the principals for interpretation.
4. The late infringement arguments, which in principle can be allowed under the discretion of the Court of Appeal, were not allowed in this case as there was no justification provided by the appellants for not submitting them in time, also taking in consideration that the arguments relate to the appellant’s own product and the appellant got an extended period of two months to file its Objection in first instance.
5. The Court of Appeal stated that this is different with respect to an uncontested submission. This, in general, cannot be rejected on the grounds of a late filing. In other words, the appellants accepted the technical functionality of their product as proposed by the respondent but only disputed for the first time that this would be covered by the claim. 
6. As the refused non-infringement arguments have been on file since 28 November 2025, the respondent had enough time to study these and reply to them in the Statement of Response.
7. The request to allow the new video and witness statement was also denied as the appellant could have obtained it earlier and it clearly constitutes a new invalidity attack (based on prior public use). 
8. The Court did not agree that the patent is not novel because of D2 and D6.
9. The Court also disagreed with most inventive step attacks because the appellant failed to explain why the skilled person would make a certain combination.
10. The Court of Appeal found infringement.
11. The Court carefully weighed the interest of the parties and concluded that the continued offering of the infringing software poses a concrete risk to the market position of the patentee, also as it is the only competitor who uses the infringing software, so that the product is for that reason in direct competition with the patented software tool of the patentee. 

Comment

1. This case shows the importance of the frontloaded character of UPC proceedings, also on appeal. It is in principle not possible to correct late filing on appeal. In general, this would be detrimental to the position of the respondent, who would be forced to defend itself against new arguments in one instance and with only limited means to file further arguments and evidence.
2. The first rule if you launch a new product in direct competition with a known competitor, is to look at the patent position (including applications) of the competitor and consider the arguments you can make with respect to validity and possible infringement.
3. If you are sued in PI proceedings at the UPC, you have to get to work immediately from day 1!
4. Also in this case, it is interesting to see the difference between fact and law. On the basis of agreed facts, for instance because you accept that the patentee describes your product (and the way it works) correctly, you can always argue (even if you did not do so in your Statement of defence) that you do not infringe (a legal question). However, the other party should have the opportunity to think about your argument and have time to react.
5. Another lesson is that it is not good enough to find a combination of documents that, together, show the invention (and to argue that the skilled person will see respectively make the combination). It is very important to convincingly substantiate why the skilled person confronted with the problem (object) of the invention will (and not can) make the combination. I see very often revocation attempts which lack exactly this (i.e., the why: the incentive etc.). 

8 July 2026

Local Division Düsseldorf, ETRI v META

UPC_CFI_2051/2025; UPC_CFI_1653/2026

Stay of proceedings

Facts

Parties requested a stay to finalize their settlement.

JR

Granted the stay.

Comment

Peace!

10 July 2026

Court of Appeal, Adobe v Keeex

UPC_CoA_95/2026 

Provisional damages

 Facts

1. Keeex files an infringement suit based on EP 2 949 070 against defendants and asks for € 5.6 billion in damages.
2. During a management conference, Keeex agrees to withdraw its claim for establishing the amount of damages in the main proceedings but to ask for it in damage proceedings if it wins the main case. The order as a result of that conference states that the proceedings are limited to the question of infringement and a possible request for a provisional amount of damages.
3. In its next pleadings (the Reply), Keeex withdraws its claim for the € 5 billion of damages, asking instead for damages to be established in damage proceedings and asking for provisional damages of € 120 million.
4. Defendants ask the JR to order that the demand is not admissible or summarily reject the demand, arguing among other things that the demand was late because not in the Statement of Claim. 
5. The JR rejects the demand and the full panel does the same in review proceedings. The Court refuses to give leave for appeal.
6. The defendants file a request for discretionary appeal.

The standing judge of the Court of Appeal

1. The standing judge sets out the criteria for a successful discretionary appeal:
   1. the order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous, or
   2. the order raises a fundamental legal question which requires an appeal in order to guarantee the uniform application of the law.
2. The standing judge explains in great detail that the decision of the Local Division is not manifestly erroneous (but in fact right!) and dismisses the request for leave for appeal.

Comment

1. The defendants have apparently been caught by surprise but the outcome of the management conference was very clear. There would be no discussion in the proceedings about the requested amount of € 5 billion of damages. However, defendants accepted that claimant could ask for a provisional amount. What they apparently overlooked was that that could still be a rather substantial amount! € 120 million is only ± 2,5 percent of the principal amount demanded, which is very modest in relative terms! Of course, thereafter it was too late. It was not credible to argue after what happened during the management conference that the request for a provisional amount was too late, or that the request should be dismissed, etc.
2. After the Local Division had already refused leave for appeal, the decision of the standing judge did not come as a surprise. At least he gave applicants good value for their money by explaining in detail why they were wrong. 

10 July 2026

Central Division Milan, Gilead v AMMS

UPC_CFI_1968/2026 

Suspension / stay for payment of costs

Facts

1. Gilead which won the revocation proceedings requested the Court to order AMMS to pay € 800.000 within 4 weeks for legal costs.
2. AMMS did not dispute the amount but asked for suspensive effect or alternatively payment in instalments. 
3. AMMS relied on Art. 74(2) UPCA alternatively on R. 295 RoP.

The Court

1. Art. 74 (1) UPCA contains the general rule: no suspensive effect.
2. Art. 74 (2) UPCA is the result of the specific nature of patent validity. A first instance decision with respect to validity cannot produce its definite legal effects until such decision has to become final.
3. With respect to R. 295 RoP (“The Court may stay proceedings”) the Court remarks that the fact that in the main proceedings appeal is pending, does not provide a reason to suspend the separate cost proceedings. 
4. AMMS have not put forward any exceptional reasons to warrant a stay.
5. Paying in instalments cannot be imposed absent agreement between the parties.

Comment

1. This decision will not come as a surprise to AMMS.
2. Even if the order to pay costs would have been part of the revocation decision, I still think that the cost decision part of the judgment can be declared immediately enforceable. In such a situation, it would be prudent to ask for it.
3. In this case the special (financial) status of the defendant (a public institution) had already been discussed extensively during the main proceedings and apart from the special status of the defendant, nothing else had apparently been advanced to justify a stay. 
4. However, I do not agree why an agreement between the parties is necessary in order to make payment instalments possible. In fact, a payment in instalments is nothing more than granting stays for different amounts for different periods of time. For example, if the Court orders that half the amount only has to be paid after a year, it de facto grants a stay for payment of 50% for a period of a year. I do not see why a Court  cannot order this in exceptional circumstances. 

– All comments above are Prof. Hoyng‘s personal opinions –