Topics: R. 158 RoP
-
CoA, Order of July 12, 2025, R 220.2 RoP Appeal on security for costs
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…
2 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, July 2, 2025, procedural order on security for procedural costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_245/2025
An intervener on the Defendant’s side does not have to provide security for procedural costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP. : While the intervener is to be treated as a party pursuant to Rule 315.4 RoP and may be liable for cost reimbursement as such, this is a different question from whether they have to…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, May 12, 2025, order on appeal against order for security of costs, especially when the action has become devoid of purpose, UPC_CoA_328/2024
Admissibility of Appeals: An appeal against an order for security of costs, brought together with an appeal against an order on provisional measures remains admissible, even if the request has become devoid of purpose (here because the appellant has later made it clear that it no longer requests provisional measures). The appellant retains a legal…
3 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→ -
Court of Appeal, February 19, 2025, order on release of cost security, UPC_CoA_217/2024
R. 352.2 RoP is applied by way of analogy with regard to the release of security for legal costs.: R. 352.2 RoP directly concerns the release of a security for enforcement but should be applied by way of analogy in a case in which security for legal costs has been deposited and afterwards the action…
1 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 14, 2024, order on panel review, UPC_CoA_651/2024
Order on security is case management and open for panel review (R. 333 RoP): Judge-rapporteur can issue an order for security of costs. There is no wording in R. 158 RoP that such orders shall be adopted by the panel. There is a broad scope for review of actions of the judge-rapporteur, as laid down…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, December 17, 2024, Order, UPC 252/2023
Release of Security for Costs Requires Independent Financial Standing: The UPC held that R. 352.2 RoP also applies to the release of a security for legal costs, even though this is not explicitly mentioned in Rule 158 RoP, which governs the imposition of such securities. The Court ultimately rejected Claimant’s request to release the security…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, September 27, 2024, Procedural Order on Security of Costs, UPC_CFI_164/2024
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…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 2, Procedural Order on Security for Costs UPC_CFI_54/2024
US-based NPE has to provide security: The Claimant is a non-practicing entity with no operational business. Its business model appears to be based solely on revenues expected from patent litigation. The Claimant owns no other assets other than the patents used in multiple worldwide litigations and it has failed to substantially challenge these reasons and…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 16, 2024, order concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_301/2024
Late filed requests and duty to provide evidence: The Court of Appeal may decide to disregard late filed requests, facts and evidence even if these were not objected by the other party (Rule 222.2 RoP). The Court of Appeal may exercise its discretion in this respect. When exercising this discretion, it shall take into account…
3 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→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 6, 2024, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_165/2024 and UPC_CFI_166/2024
Existence of infringement is assessed on the basis of UPC law without recourse to national patent law: Art. 25 UPCA (right to prevent the direct use of the invention) constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA (provisional and protective measures) uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws so that these…
11 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.