Topics: Art. 69(4) UPCA
-
LD Hamburg, June 10, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026 — Security for Costs Against Asset-Pledged Patent Litigation Entity
Florida Statutes’ conditions for recognizing foreign judgments reflect international standards and do not justify ordering security for costs under R. 158 RoP: The fact that a claimant is domiciled in the U.S. does not establish an enforcement risk. Section 55 of the Florida Statutes conditions recognition on ordre publique, reciprocity, and fair trial principles –…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CoA_48/2026
The qualification of a party as an SME or the submission of a declaration purporting to establish a party’s SME status pursuant to R. 370.8 RoP is not, in itself, sufficient to dispense with the obligation for said party to provide a security for costs in accordance with R. 158 RoP, if the requirements for…
6 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CFI_998/2026 et al
When assessing the requirement for a procedural security, namely the question whether the Claimant has “sufficient means” to compensate the Defendant for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings, only the financial situation of the Claimant should be taken into consideration, but not the financial situation of the holding company behind the Claimant.: 7. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 23, 2026, order on cost security, UPC_CFI_617/2025
FRAND security of defendant does not relieve claimant from providing cost security : A bank guarantee provided by a defendant, as part of an objection of compulsory licence under antitrust law, as security for any potential licence payment obligations towards the claimant and thus to avert an injunction claim asserted by the claimant (“FRAND security”),…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 7, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_21/2026
Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA can only be ordered against the applicant who is initiating proceedings. Never in the applicant’s favour.: An “applicant” is defined as the person who initiates legal proceedings by filing an application. This one-directional mechanism ensures that the party brought involuntarily into proceedings is protected against unrecoverable costs. At…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 3, 2025, procedural order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_127/2024 et al
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…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, April 11, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_597/2024
Late-filed prior art is generally inadmissible.: The UPC emphasizes a front-loaded procedural system, generally disallowing the introduction of new prior art after the exchange of written submissions. This approach safeguards procedural fairness and prevents undue delays (Art. 76 UPCA, Rules 171, 172, and 263 RoP). In this case, the claimant’s attempt to introduce a US…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, April 2, 2025, order on procedural security, UPC_CFI_429/2024
The mere allegation that enforcement of foreign judgments at Claimant’s seat in China has proven to be enormously difficult is not sufficient reason to order a procedural security pursuant to R. 158 RoP.: The fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a non-EU/non-EEA country, especially in the People’s Republic of China, cannot be…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 29, 2024, order on relevant criteria for security for costs (R.158 RoP), UPC_CoA_548/2024
When deciding on a request for security for costs– failing any guarantees or other special circumstances, it is not relevant whether the claimant belongs to a – financially sound – group of companies. It is only the financial position of the claimant itself that is relevant;– it is not relevant whether a claimant is willing…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 27, 2024, Order on a request for discretionary review of an order on security for costs (R.220.3 RoP), UPC_CoA_651/2024
With this order, the Court of Appeal allows leave to appeal on the question whether the judge-rapporteur can decide alone on security for costs of a party and deny leave to appeal.: In the case at hand, the Mannheim Local Division ordered, with reference to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, Claimant Total Semiconductor to…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 17, 2024, order of the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_217/2024 et. al.
Standard and its application to the case at hand: The Court, when exercising its discretion under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, must determine, in light of the facts and arguments brought forward by the parties, whether the financial position of the Claimant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.