Topics: security for costs
-
LD Munich, August 26, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_248-2025
Security for costs: The court may, pursuant to Art. 64(4) UPCA and R.158.1 RoP, at its own discretion and upon the defendant’s application, order the provision of security for the costs of the proceedings and any other costs of the party, taking into account the facts and arguments presented by the parties. In doing so,…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 9, 2025, order, UPC_CoA_430/2025
Case management orders, such as orders concerning security for costs, require panel review before appeal: R. 333.1 RoP mandates that case maagement orders issued by the judge-rapporteur (e.g. security for costs orders) must be reviewed by the panel of the CFI before an appeal to the CoA is admissible: Judge-rapporteur’s decision to grant leave to…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, July 9, 2025, order concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_431/2025
Failure to lodge Statement of response within the time limit of R. 235.2 RoP: Under R. 9.2 RoP the Court may disregard any step, fact, evidence or argument which a party has not taken or submitted in accordance with a time limit. The CoA will, however, have to examine whether the grounds of appeal are…
3 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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, June 26, 2025, order concerning security of costs and disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose
When an applicant withdraws its request for provisional measures on appeal, the action becomes devoid of purpose. The Court may then dispose of the action under R. 360 of RoP.: The extent of the legal review in relation to costs (Art. 69 (1) UPCA) where the action is disposed of according to R. 360 RoP…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 20, 2025, order concerning security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CoA_393/2025
Security for costs can only be requested by defendants, not claimants, in infringement or revocation actions: According to Art 69 (4) UPC Agreement (UPCA), at the request of the defendant, the court may order the claimant to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant which the claimant may…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Dusseldorf, May 21, 2025, order on application for cost security, UPC_CFI_758/2024
Requirements for requesting cost security based on undue burden of enforcement in a foreign jurisdiction: Pursuant to Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP, the Court may, upon a party’s request, order the opponent to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant, which the applicant may be liable…
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 Düsseldorf, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_336/2024, UPC_CFI_605/2024
Request for security of legal costs under Rule 158 RoP: Defendants requested security for legal costs, citing the Claimant’s financial instability and potential difficulties in enforcing a cost decision. The Claimant argued its solvency, highlighting progress in capital raising and debt restructuring initiatives. Defendants argued enforcement challenges due to the Claimant being based in Singapore,…
3 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→ -
LD Munich, March 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_425/2024
Background of the case: The Applicants request a security for costs under R.158 RoP by arguing that Respondent has its registered office in the People’s Republic of China so that it is alleged that it was not sufficiently certain that a cost decision would be accepted and could be enforced in China. The Respondent countered…
4 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→ -
CD Paris, December 27, 2024, Order concerning an application for additional Security for Costs, Rule 158 RoP, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Modification instead of additional request: Requests for increased security for costs are treated as modifications of existing orders, requiring analysis under Rule 158 RoP. Power to amend orders on security for costs: The UPC can amend orders on security for costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP if the facts underlying the initial order have changed.…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, December 27, 2024, Application under Rule 333 RoP for review of security for costs, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Incorrect citation of legal provisions is harmless: The Court must consider a motion even if the legal provisions cited are incorrect, provided the correct legal grounds can be identified from the arguments and facts. The same applies if an application refers to an incorrect order. Change in factual circumstances can impact an existing order on…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.