Key takeaways
Security for legal costs, party located in the United States
Since the imposition of a security for legal costs constitutes a restriction of the right to an effective remedy before a court, the need to protect the defendant has to be weighed against the burden on the claimant caused by an order to provide a security. There should be no unjustified interference with the claimant’s right to an effective remedy and to a fair hearing.
The facts that the claimant was located in the United States and that the court, for obvious reasons, still lacks experience about enforcing orders by the UPC in the United States, were not in itself sufficient for ordering security for costs.
Factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to issue an order for security include the financial position of the other party and/or the likelihood that a possible order for costs by the UPC may not, or only in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable.
Division
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
UPC number
UPC_CFI_380/2023
Type of proceedings
Infringement action
Parties
Applicants / Defendants in infringement suit:
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED
MERIL GMBH
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ
SORMEDICA, UAB
INTERLUX, UAB
VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB
Respondent / Claimant in infringement suit:
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
Patent(s)
EP3769722
Body of legislation / Rules
Article 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP
