Key takeaways
Security for Costs
The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance’s order requiring the appellant to provide €300,000 as security for the respondent’s costs (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP).
The Court emphasized the legitimate concern about the appellant’s ability to pay costs.
The amount was deemed consistent with the value of the case.
The Court of Appeal reiterated its limited power to review cost decisions, emphasizing the Court of First Instance’s discretion. The review is restricted to whether the lower court exceeded its discretion.
A change in the claimed damages does not automatically lead to a lower security. The overall value of the case, including other remedies like injunctions, remains relevant.
Grounds of appeal which are not raised within the period specified for the Statement of grounds of appeal in R. 224.2 RoP shall not be admissible (R.233.3 RoP).
Division
CoA
UPC number
U PC_CoA_596/2024
Type of proceedings
R 220.2 RoP Appeal on security for costs
Parties
APPELLANT (DEFENDANT IN THE R 158 RoP APPLICATION AND CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
Suinno Mobile & Al Technologies Licensing Oy
RESPONDENT (APPLICANT IN THE R 158 RoP APPLICATION AND DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
Microsoft Corporation
Patent
EP 2 671 173
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 69 UPCA and
R. 158 RoP
