Short Summary
Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
Detailed Summary
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. is the proprietor of European patent EP 2 787 541, which relates to a solar cell. On 19 July 2024, JingAo brought an infringement action against Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and five other parties before the Munich Local Division of the Court of First Instance, seeking an order prohibiting the alleged infringement of the patent. On 28 November 2024, Chint and the other five defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. On 15 April 2025, JingAo filed an application requesting the Court to order Chint and the other five defendants to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000. By order of 5 May 2025, the Munich Local Division ordered Chint to provide security in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, while rejecting the application in respect of the other five defendants.
Chint lodged an appeal against this order, requesting that the Court of Appeal revoke the impugned order, reject the request for security for costs in respect of Chint, and order JingAo to pay the costs of the appeal. In parallel, Chint filed an application requesting that the appeal have suspensive effect, or alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. Chint argued that providing security before the order in the main appeal proceedings was issued would be an undue burden, and that the impugned order was based on incorrect conclusions and contradictory reasoning.
The Court of Appeal ruled on the application for suspensive effect and expedition. Under Article 74(1) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), an appeal does not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise. The Court found that while it was unlikely that the Court of Appeal would issue its order before the 6 June 2025 deadline, the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect, as Chint could release the security if the impugned order was subsequently revoked. The Court also held that Chint failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden—the mere need to make arrangements with banks and internal finance departments was insufficient, especially considering that suspension could cause delays in the proceedings before the Munich Local Division. The Court further noted that whether the impugned order was based on incorrect conclusions was a matter for the main appeal proceedings, and Chint had not demonstrated manifest errors.
Regarding expedition, under Rule 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may shorten time periods on a reasoned request, balancing the interests of both parties. The Court found that Chint's interests did not justify expedition at the expense of JingAo's legitimate interest in having the appeals dealt with within the timeframe provided by the Rules of Procedure. The Court decided without hearing JingAo, as the application for suspensive effect had to be decided without delay under Rule 223.3 RoP and the outcome was in JingAo's favour. The application for suspensive effect and the request for expedition were both rejected.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.