Key takeaways
50% of ceiling of recoverable costs as security during written proccedings
The Respondent is a limited company which was registered 7 months before the present infringement action was filed and has only one employee besides the managing director. It’s business model is exclusively characterized by the enforcement of patents, namely the patent-in-suit, and asserting corresponding license claims, the respondent does not generate sufficient income or other cash flow.
While the Applicant sufficiently substantiated its allegations by submitting the correspondent publicly available financial information, the Respondent did not challenge these allegations, let alone provided any documentation to contradict the evidence presented by the Applicant.
As the future course of the proceeedings and the complexity of the procedural activities remain uncertain and difficult to forsee, as written procedure is still in progress, it appears reasonable to set an amount of the security equal to 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs.
Opposing request for security of costs inadmissable if only made in written comment
The Respondent requested security for costs if the Applicant’s application is granted in its written comments only.
The Court asked to submit its comment to the Applicant’s application and this does not allow the submitting of any autonomous request which does not relate directly to the Applicant’s one. Therefore, if the Respondent wished to lodge an own request for security for costs it should have filed a proper distinct application in this regard.
Division
CD Paris
UPC number
UPC_CFI_164/2024
Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Applicant: Microsoft Corporation
Respondent: Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Patent(s)
EP 2 671 173
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 158 RoP
