1. Key takeaways
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 provide security pursuant to Rule 158 RoP. This – latter – question is answered in the negative, based on the Court of Appeal's reasoning in AorticLab v. Emboline (UPC_CoA_393/2025 APL_20694/2025).
2. Division
Local Division Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_245/2025
ORD_28635/2025 in ACT_13628/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Request for procedural security in main infringement action
5. Parties
CLAIMANT: SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. (Neutal, Austria)
DEFENDANT: Yunex GmbH (Munich, Germany)
INTERVENER: Shenzen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. (Shenzen, P.R. China)
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 643 717
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 158 RoP, Rule 315.4 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.
