Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an infringement action concerning solar cell technology. The court ultimately granted the application, requiring the claimant (JingAo) to provide a deposit of € 200,000. The ruling emphasizes that while enforcement difficulties exist in non-EU jurisdictions like China, these do not automatically defeat the need for security; rather, the applicant must demonstrate legitimate concerns regarding enforceability.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court ruled that despite difficulties in enforcing cost decisions in non-EU/EEA countries like China, these difficulties do not automatically preclude enforcement. The burden of proof rests on the applicant (Chint) to demonstrate why security for costs is necessary, and the Court found this requirement was met based on practical experiences with service and recognition issues.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Luxembourg (LU), 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
10x Genomics, Inc.vsCurio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope and persistence of confidential information protection orders (R.262A RoP) across different procedural stages. The court held that confidentiality obligations established by the CFI remain fully effective in subsequent appeal proceedings, negating the need for redundant protective measures. This ruling provides clarity on how parties must manage sensitive evidence when appealing decisions.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsBelkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the core infringement finding, ordering Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products under Art. 64 EPGÜ. Crucially, the ruling provided significant guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and established clear legal boundaries regarding the liability of corporate directors for patent infringement.
Grundfos Holding A/SvsHefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Grundfos Holding A/S sued Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. for infringing its patent covering a specialized heating circulation pump unit with electronic switching capabilities. The court found infringement, allowing Grundfos to pursue an injunction and damages against the respondent's sales in Germany, France, and Italy. However, the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed, highlighting the strict procedural hurdles required for introducing new prior art during litigation.
Jingao Solar Co., Ltd.vsChint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect and expedition filed by Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. against Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. The appeal concerned a security for costs order issued by the Court of First Instance in the main infringement/revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 787 541. The Court ultimately rejected Chint's request, upholding the original timeline and requiring Chint to provide the stipulated security.
Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a costs application following the withdrawal of an infringement action against Apple Inc. The Court determined that despite the case not being formally closed, the extensive exchange of pleadings warranted only a partial reimbursement of court fees. This ruling provides clarity on how the UPC assesses fee reimbursement when parties withdraw actions during the written procedure phase.
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.