In a short but practically relevant procedural order, the Mannheim Local Division clarified how Rule 370.7 RoP applies to court fees for counterclaims for revocation where multiple defendants are involved, but are served at different times. The Court held that one fee is sufficient where several defendants jointly file one counterclaim. By contrast, where another defendant files its own counterclaim only later, that later filing constitutes a separate counterclaim for fee purposes, even if its content is identical to the earlier one.
The starting point was Art. 70 UPCA, under which parties to proceedings before the Court must pay court fees. That principle also applies to counterclaims for revocation.
The Court then turned to Rule 370.7 RoP, which provides that where an action has more than one claimant and/or more than one defendant, only one fixed fee and, where applicable, one value-based fee is due. On that basis, the Court confirmed that where several defendants jointly submit a single counterclaim for revocation, only one court fee is payable for that counterclaim.
That did not help defendant 1 in the case at hand. Defendants 2 to 4 had filed a counterclaim for revocation in August 2025 and paid the corresponding fee. Defendant 1, however, had only been formally served later and filed its own statement of defense and counterclaim in February 2026. Although that counterclaim apparently had the same content as the earlier one, the Court held that it was not the same action or counterclaim within the meaning of Rule 370.7 RoP. Defendant 1 was therefore required to pay a separate fee.
The Court accordingly invited defendant 1 to pay the fee within 14 days and expressly referred to the possibility of a default decision under Rule 355 RoP if payment was not made in time.
The order draws a clear distinction between one jointly filed counterclaim by several defendants and multiple counterclaims filed at different procedural stages by different defendants. Rule 370.7 RoP prevents multiple fees for one and the same counterclaim involving several parties. It does not eliminate the fee for a later, separate procedural act merely because that act mirrors an earlier filing in substance.
The point is particularly relevant in cases involving defendants outside Europe or defendants served at different times. Where service is staggered, parties cannot assume that a fee already paid by earlier defendants will automatically cover a later counterclaim by a newly served co-defendant.
