Topics: security for costs
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
CoA Luxembourg, December 17, 2024, Application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_810/2024
Suspensive Effect of Appeal: The primary legal issue revolves around the suspensive effect of an appeal, specifically under Rule 223.4 RoP, which allows for suspensive effect in cases of extreme urgency. Requirement of Extreme Urgency: The Court emphasized that the applicant must demonstrate the existence of an extreme urgency to justify suspensive effect. In this…
3 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→ -
LD Düsseldorf, December 3, 2024, Order re. procedural security against Defendant, UPC_CFI_140/2024
1. Not only the claimant but also the defendant may be ordered to provide security for legal costs within the meaning of R. 158 RoP.: (pp. 5 et seq.) Contrary to the Defendant´s position, this does not mean that Rule 158 RoP is in conflict with the UPCA. The power to order the provision of…
6 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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.