Executive Summary
In a procedural order concerning security of legal costs, the UPC addressed concerns raised by several defendants regarding the financial stability of the claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants' request for security, setting the required amount at EUR 100,000. This decision underscores the court's power to manage procedural risks and ensure that patent holders can bear the costs associated with litigation.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC granted a request for security of legal costs, finding it admissible and well-founded. The Court balanced the Defendants' financial concerns against the Claimant's right to enforce its patent, setting a specific, proportionate security amount.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP)vsAccord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB
Sanofi initiated infringement actions against Accord Healthcare and related entities concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, which covers a specific compound combination for treating advanced prostate cancer. The UPC Local Division Munich issued a procedural order confirming the case schedule, including an interim conference in September 2025 and the main oral hearing in October 2025. This ruling moves the litigation into its substantive phase, setting the stage for detailed arguments on infringement and validity.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbHvsSteros GPA Innovative S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed OTEC's request to suspend the effect of an injunction granted by the Court of First Instance against Steros. OTEC sought suspension based on alleged manifest errors and violations of its right to be heard in the initial proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this application, affirming that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This ruling reinforces the high threshold required for parties seeking to halt enforcement measures while their appeal is pending.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.vsPhoton Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex application for cost reimbursement following preliminary objection proceedings regarding patent competence. Seoul Viosys sought compensation for costs incurred during the legal dispute over whether the Central or Local Division was competent to hear the revocation action. The Court ruled that while the application was admissible, the recoverable costs were limited because the preliminary objection lacked the technical depth of the main revocation action. Ultimately, a partial award of EUR 11,200 was granted.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsBelkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion regarding cost determination following an earlier ruling. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a specific cost allocation, but subsequently withdrew its application due to an administrative error. The court accepted this withdrawal, effectively closing the costs procedure without altering the underlying substantive dispute or the initial cost split.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBHvsBALLINNO B.V.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of financial details within an application for a cost decision. The Claimant sought to protect specific costs information, arguing it constituted a business secret revealing strategic resource allocation. While the court denied the broad request for confidential protection under R. 262A RoP, it granted a narrower measure preventing the Defendant from disclosing the subject matter of the cost decision to third parties. This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting party interests and maintaining public oversight in UPC proceedings.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.