ARTICLE
2 July 2025

Court Of Appeal, June 20, 2025, Order Concerning Security For Costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CoA_393/2025

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.
Security for costs can only be requested by defendants, not claimants, in infringement or revocation actions
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

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 be liable to bear. The right to request security for costs is deliberately limited to defendants to protect them from insolvent claimants. This restriction applies even if the claimant becomes a defendant in a counterclaim for revocation.

Rules of Procedure cannot override the UPCA's express limitations

Even though Rule 158 RoP refers to "a request by one party", the UPCA prevails in case of conflict, and thus only defendants may request security for costs. This reinforces the principle that the RoP cannot expand the Court's powers beyond what is explicitly stipulated in the UPCA.

No legal basis in the Enforcement Directive for claimants to request security for costs

The Enforcement Directive's provisions on security are designed to protect defendants, not claimants, reinforcing the UPCA's approach.

Allowing claimants to request security for costs in response to a counterclaim would unreasonably limit the defendant in its defense

While a counterclaim for revocation is a separate action, it is inherently linked to the infringement action. Allowing security for costs for claimants in response to a counterclaim would unduly restrict defendants' ability to defend themselves.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_393/2025, APL_20694/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal against an order for security of costs; originally main infringement action with counterclaim for revocation

5. Parties

Appellant (and Defendant before the Court of First Instance): AorticLab srl

Respondent (and Claimant before the Court of First Instance): Emboline, Inc.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 129 425

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 158 RoP

Art. 69(4) UPCA

Art. 32(1)(d) UPCA

Directive 2004/48/EC (Enforcement Directive)

Rule 355 RoP

UPC_CoA_393_2025 – 20 June 2025 – CoA

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