2 cases · page 1 of 1
Shinkyung Inc. v.Boa Technologies Inc. (Application for Security for Costs)
This order concerns an application by Defendant 2 Shinkyung Inc. under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure for security for costs in proceedings concerning EP 3 003 087 B1 before the Local Division Düsseldorf. Shinkyung sought EUR 200,000 in security, citing the alleged poor financial state of Boa Technologies' holding company CODI. The court dismissed the application, holding that only the financial situation of the claimant (Boa Technologies) is relevant, not that of its non-party holding company, and finding that Boa Technologies had demonstrated sufficient financial means.
Shinkyung Inc. v.Boa Technology Inc. (UPC_CFI_998/2025)
Shinkyung Inc., a defendant in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 777 595 B1 before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Düsseldorf, applied for security for costs of EUR 200,000 against the claimant Boa Technology Inc. (BOA), citing the alleged poor financial state of BOA's parent holding company CODI. BOA opposed the application, arguing its financial stability was independent of CODI's stock price and that it was financially well. The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed the application, holding that only the financial situation of the claimant BOA—not its non-party parent CODI—should be considered, and finding that BOA had demonstrated sufficient financial means.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.