ARTICLE
10 December 2024

CoA, November 29, 2024, Order On Relevant Criteria For Security For Costs (R.158 RoP), UPC_CoA_548/2024

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 CoA dismissed Claimant Aarke's appeal, in particular because Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence in relation to the application of the applicable law by the courts in Israel.
Germany Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

1. Key takeaways

When deciding on a request for security for costs
– failing any guarantees or other special circumstances, it is not relevant whether the claimant belongs to a – financially sound – group of companies. It is only the financial position of the claimant itself that is relevant;
– it is not relevant whether a claimant is willing to reimburse the defendant if a cost order would be issued in favour of the defendant;
– it is also irrelevant whether a cost order in favour of the defendant is to be expected. The Court should not engage in evaluating the likelihood of the outcome of the case;
– it is not required that it is proven that enforcement is impossible. It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome. The burden of showing this is on the applicant of an order for security for costs. To this end, the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order shall be enforced, but also its application.

The CoA dismissed Claimant Aarke's appeal, in particular because Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence in relation to the application of the applicable law by the courts in Israel. Defendant Sodastream on the other hand, with reference to case law from the Supreme Court, sufficiently substantiated that a cost order issued by the Unified Patent Court was likely to be enforceable in Israel without undue burden. Aarke did not sufficiently dispute this.

2. Division

Luxembourg Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_548/2024

APL_52969/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal against an order dismissing Defendants request for a procedural security

5. Parties

APPELLANT and Defendant before the Court of First Instance:

Aarke AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

RESPONDENT and Claimant before the Court of First Instance:

SodaStream Industries Ltd. (Kfar Saba, Israel)

6. Patent(s)

EP 1 793 917

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP

2024-11-29 UPC_CoA_548_2024 APL_52969_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