ARTICLE
7 October 2024

CD Paris, September 27, 2024, Procedural Order On Security Of Costs, UPC_CFI_164/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
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.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

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 license claims, the respondent does not generate sufficient income or other cash flow.

While the Applicant sufficiently substantiated its allegations by submitting the correspondent publicly available financial information, the Respondent did not challenge these allegations, let alone provided any documentation to contradict the evidence presented by the Applicant.

As the future course of the proceeedings and the complexity of the procedural activities remain uncertain and difficult to forsee, as written procedure is still in progress, it appears reasonable to set an amount of the security equal to 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs.

Opposing request for security of costs inadmissable if only made in written comment

The Respondent requested security for costs if the Applicant's application is granted in its written comments only.

The Court asked to submit its comment to the Applicant's application and this does not allow the submitting of any autonomous request which does not relate directly to the Applicant's one. Therefore, if the Respondent wished to lodge an own request for security for costs it should have filed a proper distinct application in this regard.

2. Division

CD Paris

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_164/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation

5. Parties

Applicant: Microsoft Corporation


Respondent: Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 671 173

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 158 RoP

2014-09-27 CD-Paris_UPC_CFI_164-2024
Download

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More