Topics: security for costs
-
LD Düsseldorf, April 23, 2026, Decision, Infringement action and CCfR, UPC_CFl_559/2024 and UPC_CFl_106/2025 – Quantificare v. Canfield
Pan-UPC-territorial orders under Art. 34 UPCA can be based on infringing acts in a “carved-out” Contracting Member State (Headnote; mn. 238 et seqq.): The claimant had excluded Germany from the infringement action before the UPC Düsseldorf LD for procedural reasons (parallel proceedings before the Düsseldorf Regional Court for the German national portion of the same…
8 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 14, 2026, Order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_48/2026
The Court of Appeal can grant suspensive effect to an order pursuant to R. 220.2 RoP as Art. 74 UPCA prevails over R. 223.5 RoP.: The Court confirmed its established case law that in case of a conflict between the UPCA and Rules of Procedure , the UPCA prevails (R. 1.1 RoP), allowing it to…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Brussels LD, March 18, 2026, Procedural Order (R. 158 RoP)(II), UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
The Brussels Local Division did not consider enforcement of a UPC costs order in Costa Rica to be unduly burdensome on the evidence presented: The Court held that the defendants had not shown that recognition and enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica were “unduly burdensome” within the meaning of the UPC case law. In particular, the…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, March 13, 2026, Order on Application for Security for Costs, UPC_CFI_927/2025
Key takeaway Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA / R. 158 RoP may be ordered where the claimant’s own financial situation gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a future costs award may not be recoverable or enforceable.: When assessing security for costs, the UPC looks at the financial position of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 24, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025
Rehearing is an exceptional remedy; only fundamental, outcome‑determinative procedural defects justify reopening final appeal decisions (Art. 81(1) UPCA; R. 245, 247 RoP): The court reaffirms the rulings in UPC_CoA_405/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Amgen, and UPC_CoA_402/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Samsung. Especially, it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 19, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025
Simply stating that a claimant’s registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs according to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP: Generally, the fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a country…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris – 04. February 2026 – Security for Cost -UPC_CFI_5302025
A default judgment for failing to provide security for costs is a discretionary sanction (Rule 158.5, 355.1 RoP) and requires a clear failure of diligence.: The Court found no failure of diligence where the claimant blocked the required funds in time, sought clarification on the procedure, and promptly submitted a compliant guarantee after receiving guidance.…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, December 12, 2025, Order on Security for Costs, UPC_CFI_525/2025
Security for costs for Taiwanese company may be ordered: Security for costs application against a claimant company established in Taiwan can be accepted as the facts provided in the case indicate that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome especially because neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provide certainty…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 30, 2025, order on application for security for costs, UPC_CoA_8/2025
An application for security for costs may be filed after the summon for oral hearing has been issued: An application for a security for costs may be filed at any time during proceedings (R. 158.1 RoP first sentence) and may equally be filed in first instance and appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_328/2024, Order of 26 August 2024,…
3 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.