1. Key takeaways
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, outside the EU. The Claimant countered that domicile should not affect enforcement under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP.
Amount of security set by the Court
The Court set the security amount at EUR 100,000, considering the ceiling for recoverable costs and proportionality.
Balancing interests between security and effective remedy
The Court balanced the Defendants' interest in security against the Claimant's right to an effective remedy, referencing Art. 47 of the Charter and the Enforcement Directive.
2. Division
LD Düsseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_336/2024 u UPC_CFI_605/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Claimant:
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Defendant(s):
Group 1: Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.
Group 2: Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 065 184 B1
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 158 RoP, Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 152 RoP
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.
