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
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
Tiroler Rohre GmbHvsRespondent
The Local Chamber Munich addressed the procedural consequences following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 2 839 083. After the applicant withdrew its request following the oral hearing, the defendants argued they had a legitimate interest in a substantive decision due to defense costs and the imminent filing of a main action. The court held that no legitimate interest existed for a decision after withdrawal, as such a decision would have no res judicata effect and could not prevent new proceedings.
Aarke ABvsRespondent
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbHvsRespondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP3065184 (relating to trench processes and structures for back side contact solar cells) applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance was required to assess the admissibility of the application and the merits of the language change request. The order addressed both procedural admissibility of the English-language submission and the substantive balancing of interests between the parties regarding the language of proceedings.
AGFA NVvsGucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present 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.