Key takeaways
Florida Statutes’ conditions for recognizing foreign judgments reflect international standards and do not justify ordering security for costs under R. 158 RoP
The fact that a claimant is domiciled in the U.S. does not establish an enforcement risk. Section 55 of the Florida Statutes conditions recognition on ordre publique, reciprocity, and fair trial principles – standards equally present in European jurisdictions. The defendants failed to demonstrate any practice of non-recognition of UPC decisions in Florida. In particular, these rules do not imply that the Courts of the State of Florida would likely deny recognition of decisions of the UPC as of any other European Court who is following a loser-pays rule, using a front-loaded system or is restrictive on discovery or expert hearings.
A claimant whose entire patent portfolio and all income are pledged to a third party is effectively assetless, justifying security under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP
Where a claimant’s assets consist essentially of a patent portfolio, and all patents, licenses, income, royalties, proceeds and liabilities are pledged under a security agreement, the claimant is rendered basically assetless in an economical sense – regardless of retained legal ownership. This justifies ordering security for costs.
The claimant was a newly established single-purpose entity, incorporated just days before acquiring the patent portfolio, with no credit history and an outstanding purchase balance of USD 2 million, rendering it also mainly illiquid and dependent on a third party’s willingness to fund.
The judge-rapporteur may issue security for costs orders without convening a full panel (R. 158 RoP)
R. 158 RoP does not exclusively reserve security for costs decisions to the full panel. This flexibility allows the judge-rapporteur or presiding judge to organise proceedings efficiently and cost-effectively.
The amount of security must balance cost-recovery interests with the claimant’s right of access to justice under Art. 47 EU Charter
The security need not equal the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Court set the amount at 50% of the applicable ceiling (EUR 200,000 out of EUR 400,000), balancing the defendants’ legitimate interest in cost recovery against the claimant’s fundamental right to an effective remedy under Art. 47 EU Charter and the Enforcement Directive. The Court did not follow the defendants’ suggestion to consider a high out-of-court settlement offer and to raise the value in dispute accordingly.
Division
Local Division Hamburg
UPC number
UPC_CFI_360/2026
Type of proceedings
Application for security for costs
Parties
Applicants / Defendants: Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, Nomios Germany GmbH
vs.
Claimant: Nixu FL IP Protection LLC
Patent(s)
EP 2 005 696
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 158(5) RoP, R. 355 RoP, Art. 47 CFR
