Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Munich Local Division » LD Munich, July 3, 2025, procedural order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_127/2024 et al

LD Munich, July 3, 2025, procedural order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_127/2024 et al

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

Even if the Defendant of an infringement action is, formally, at the same time the Claimant of a counterclaim for revocation, they are entitled to a security also for procedural costs caused by filing the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP.

✓

According to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Emboline/AorticLab (UPC_CoA_383/2025, APL_20694/2025), a Claimant is, in principle, not entitled to a procedural security pursuant to Rule 158 RoP. However, this cannot apply in case of a counterclaim for revocation. Otherwise, the Defendant of an infringement action could be limited inappropriately in their defense, because they were forced to file a counterclaim for revocation to object to the validity of the patent-in-suit without the prospect of reimbursement of the costs caused by raising this defense.

Division

Local Division Munich

UPC number

UPC_CFI_127/2024 and UPC_CFI_149/2024

ORD_47961/2024, ORD_18005/2025, ORD_49715/2024, and ORD_18004/2025

Type of proceedings

Requests for procedural security with regard to counterclaims for revocation

Parties

CLAIMANT:

Headwater Research LLC (Tyler, United States)

DEFENDANTS:

  1. Motorola Mobility LLC (Chicago, United States)
  2. Motorola International Sales LLC (Chicago, United States)
  3. Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH (Oberursel, Germany)
  4. Flextronics International Europe B.V. (Oostrum, Netherlands)

Patent(s)

EP 3 110 072

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA

2025-7-3 UPC_CFI_127_2024 ORD_18005_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