Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » LD Munich, July 2, 2025, procedural order on security for procedural costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_245/2025

LD Munich, July 2, 2025, procedural order on security for procedural costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_245/2025

Michael Kobler

2 min Reading time

Table of Contents

  1. Key takeaways
  2. Division
  3. UPC number
  4. Type of proceedings
  5. Parties
  6. Patent(s)
  7. Body of legislation / Rules

Download decision(s) (PDF)

Key takeaways

An intervener on the Defendant’s side does not have to provide security for procedural costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP.

✓

While the intervener is to be treated as a party pursuant to Rule 315.4 RoP and may be liable for cost reimbursement as such, this is a different question from whether they have to provide security pursuant to Rule 158 RoP. This – latter – question is answered in the negative, based on the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in AorticLab v. Emboline (UPC_CoA_393/2025 APL_20694/2025).

Division

Local Division Munich

UPC number

UPC_CFI_245/2025

ORD_28635/2025 in ACT_13628/2025

Type of proceedings

Request for procedural security in main infringement action

Parties

CLAIMANT: SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. (Neutal, Austria)

DEFENDANT: Yunex GmbH (Munich, Germany)

INTERVENER: Shenzen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. (Shenzen, P.R. China)

Patent(s)

EP 2 643 717

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 158 RoP, Rule 315.4 RoP

2025-7-2 UPC_CFI_245_2025 ORD_29635_2025_deDownload

Was the article helpful?

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Content not to be missed

  • The Hague Local Division

    LD The Hague, August 18, 2025, Order, UPC CFI 191/2025 & UPC CFI 192/2025

    The scope of a review under R. 333 RoP is marginal and limited to the reasoned grounds submitted by the applicant: When reviewing a Judge-Rapporteur’s order, the full panel will not re-examine the entire decision but will confine its assessment to the specific, substantiated grounds for review raised by the applicant. Issues not challenged in …
    →
  • Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, August 19, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_319/2025

    The court may separate proceedings against multiple defendants on its own initiative to ensure procedural efficiency, especially when service is delayed on some defendants (Rule 303.2 RoP): When service was completed for two defendants but not for two others, the court found it unreasonable to delay the action and ordered a separation to avoid stalling …
    →
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, September 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_449/2025

    The application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court notifies the defendant of an application for provisional measures and invite objections. If the defendant does not respond or declines to substantiate objections, the Court may decide …
    →

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field