LD Hamburg, October 30, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_1646/2025

The Court stated that it is the standing practice of the UPC that the fact that a claimant is domiciled in the U.S. does not justify an order under R. 158 RoP and referred to the Order of the Local Division Hamburg dated 10 June 2026 in the matter Nixu v Infoblox et al. (LD Hamburg, Order of 10 June 2026, UPC_CFI_360/2026) in this respect.

The Court ruled that the fact that the Claimant was incorporated eight years ago as well as the allegation that it has no more than 10 employees are no basis to substantiate any doubts about the Claimant’s financial situation.

The Court held that the alleged few registrations in the name of the Claimant in addition to the patent family it is currently asserting does not substantiate the scope of the Claimant’s assets. The Court stated that the value of a patent portfolio is often volatile and that its evaluation typically hinges on the question whether the patents are used lucratively or subject to lawsuits of uncertain outcome.

The Court acknowledged that a lack of publicly available information concerning a claimant’s assets and financial position may indicate a risk that a future cost order cannot be satisfied. The Court emphasized, however, that a successful application under R. 158 RoP requires that the defendant has at least attempted to collect public information regarding the claimant’s financial situation. According to the Court, the Defendants had failed to do so. Absent such an attempt, the Claimant was not obliged to disclose detailed information about its financial situation.