Boa Technology Inc. v. Shinkyung Inc. et al.

1

Düsseldorf Local Division

UPC_CFI_1141/2025

UPC_CFI_736/2026

of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court

issued on 1 June 2026

concerning EP 2 805 639 B2

CLAIMANT:

Boa Technology Inc., 3575 Ringsby Court Suite 200, Denver, CO 80216, United States of America,

represented by:

Attorney-at-law Benjamin Grzimek, Attorney-at-law Julien Thom,

Attorney-at-law Florence Codevelle, Attorney-at-law Jörn Peters,

Kather Augenstein, Grünstraße 15, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany

electronic address for service: b.grzimek@casalonga.com

DEFENDANTS:

1. Zuatu Cycling International d.o.o., Koroska cesta 53c, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia

2. Shinkyung Inc.,6, Ecodae-ro 37beon-gil, Gangseo-gu, Busan, South Korea,

represented by:

Attorney-at-law Dr. Martin Köhler, Attorney-at-law Dr. Mirko

Weinert, Steinstraße 20, 40212 Düsseldorf,

Contributing:

Patent attorney Dr. Andreas Pfund, Patent attorney Dr. Johannes

Maurer, DREISS Patentanwälte, Friedrichstraße 6, 70032

Stuttgart,

electronic address for service: martin.koehler@hoyngrokh.com

PATENT AT ISSUE:

European patent n° EP 2 805 639 B2

PANEL/DIVISION:

Panel 2 of the Local Division in Düsseldorf

2

DECIDING JUDGES:

This order was issued by Presiding Judge Dr Thom as Judge-Rapporteur.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 158 Security for costs

OF FACTS AND REQUESTS:

1.

Integrated in Defendants’ “Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation”

(hereafter referred to as “SoD”), Defendants seek security for costs.

2.

The Defendants focus on the “severe financial state” of the holding company (CODI) behind

the Claimant “since almost a year”. Reference is made to the fallen stock price of CODI (-

62%) in 2025 compared to the year before. Further, Defendants hold the reasons for this

“crash” are structural. Defendants refer to the negative growth estimates for 2026, which

would call for an increased cash drain from the Claimant either directly (higher extraction of

dividends) or indirectly (increased intercompany loans). For these reasons Defendants

conclude it would be uncertain that Claimant would be able to meet cost claims.

3.

Regarding its first request Claimant argues that its financially stability stressing that (a) the

stock price of CODI is irrelevant for the assessment of the financial situation of the Claimant

and (b) the Claimant is financially well. Regarding its auxiliary request, and should the Court

follow the arguments made by Defendants, the Claimant argues that the requested amount

is too high as no proof has been provided regarding already incurred costs for legal

representation.

4.

The Defendants request the Court,

to order Claimant to provide to Defendants security for costs in the amount of EUR

200,000, which may also be in the form of a bank guarantee (Art. 82 (2) UPCA, RoP

158.

5.

The Claimant requests,

I.

to dismiss the Application for security for costs;

II.

as an auxiliary request, in the event the Court orders security for costs, the

amount should not exceed EUR 75.000,00;

III.

as a further auxiliary request, in the event the Court orders security for

costs, to allow the Claimant to deposit the security by deposit or bank

guarantee within eight weeks from the date of service of the order to

provide the security.

3

GROUNDS OF THE ORDER:

6.

The admissible request is unfounded and therefore has to be dismissed.

7.

In essence the Defendants base their security request on alleged legitimate concerns that

any future costs order in their favour may not be recoverable (cf. UPC CoA Order of 18

February 2026, UPC_CoA_890/2025 (Syntorr v. Arthex) §19).

8.

The ratio behind Art. 69(4) UPCA, in assessing the mentioned threshold, is the protection

of a defendant against a claimant, who initiates an action, without having sufficient means

to com