Accordion Heading
Content 1
1. Key takeaways
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 as Claimant failed to demonstrate its own, independent financial capacity to pay potential cost awards, despite undergoing restructuring and being acquired by a financially sound parent company.
The Court emphasized that the financial standing of the party itself, not its parent company or group, is the decisive factor for assessing a request to release a security for costs.
First Instance Decision Does Not Guarantee Release
The Court clarified that a first-instance decision in favor of the party requesting the release of the security does not automatically warrant the release, especially if the decision is subject to appeal. The possibility of a cost award against the Claimant remains as long as the decision is not final and non-appealable.
2. Division
Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Section Munich)
3. UPC number
UPC 252/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Order in re revocation action and release of security.
5. Parties
Claimant (Applicant): NanoString Technologies Europe Limited, represented by Daniela Kinkeldey of Bird & Bird.
Defendant: President and Fellows of Harvard College, represented by Axel Berger of Bardehle Pagenberg.
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 794 928 B1
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 158 RoP
Rule 352.2 RoP
Art. 69(4) UPCA
UPC_252_2023_CD_Munich_December_17_2024_Nanostring_Harvard 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.
