Home » UPC decisions » Central Division » Munich Central Division » CD Munich, 30 October 2023, order on security for legal costs and other expenses, UPC_CFI_252/2023

CD Munich, 30 October 2023, order on security for legal costs and other expenses, UPC_CFI_252/2023

5 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The party requesting a security has to bring forward facts and arguments why such security is appropriate in a specific case. The burden of proof of facts generally is on the party relying on those facts (Article 54 UPCA). Once facts and reasons in support of a security request have been brought forward in a credible way, it is up to the responding party to contest such facts and reasons in a substantiated way. Likewise, it is up to the respondent to argue that and why a security order would unduly interfere with their right to an effective remedy.

In principle, the enforcement of UPC (cost) judgements should be possible in the UK according to UK national procedures. However, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (the ‘Brussels Ibis Regulation’) no longer applies in the UK. The UK is furthermore not a member of the Lugano Convention nor of any other instrument of international law with a similar effect. Consequently, there is an additional (procedural) burden and uncertainty on the party seeking to enforce a UPC (cost) judgement in the UK compared to other (EU) jurisdictions.

The security may be provided in the form of a deposit on the UPC account dedicated for security deposits or by a bank guarantee provided by a significant EU bank which is under the direct supervision of the European Central Bank.

If an increased security is required at some point in time in view of the actual costs (to be) incurred in the proceedings, an additional request for security can be brought forward “at any time during the proceedings” (Rule 158.1 RoP).

A request for a decision by default against the deptor if they fail to provide adequate security within the time limit set by the Court can be an appropriate remedy and may be made pursuant to Rule 158.5 in connection with Rule 355 RoP if and when such a situation were to arise. However, the request for a decision by default if the deptor fails to provide adequate security within the time limit set by the Court was filed at the same time as the request for the cost security itself. In that case, the Court found the request for the decision by default “currently unfounded” and “premature”. Such a request may, however, be made, if and when a situation were to arise in which such a decision could be an appropriate remedy.

Division

Munich Central Division

UPC number

UPC_CFI_252/2023

Type of proceedings

Revocation action

Parties

President and Fellows of Harvard College

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited

Patent(s)

EP2794928

Jurisdictions

Germany, France, Netherlands

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 9.1, 158, 355 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field