Short Summary
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP) before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Milan Seat). The defendants filed an application under Rule 158 RoP requesting security for legal costs in the amount of 112,000 €, citing the claimant's weak financial position and the risk that a costs order would be difficult to enforce. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, a reduction of the security amount based on its status as an SME.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings concern a revocation action brought by La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd., a company based in Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom, against Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS (France) and Substipharm (France). The patent at issue is European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP). The panel was composed of Presiding Judge Andrea Postiglione, Judge Rapporteur Anna-Lena Klein, and Technically Qualified Judge Dr. Michael Alt. The language of proceedings was English.
On 16 December 2025, the defendants lodged an application for security of legal costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure together with their statement of defence. The defendants requested that the Court order the claimant to provide security for costs in the amount of 112,000 € within four weeks from the date of service of the order, and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the revocation action by default upon the defendants' request. The defendants estimated their minimal potential adverse cost risk at 112,000 €, based on the value of the revocation action at 1,000,000 €.
The claimant, in its reply to the statement of defence and reply to the application to amend the patent filed on 13 February 2026, requested that the defendants' application be dismissed. In the alternative, the claimant requested that any security for costs be reduced to a reasonable amount, taking into consideration its status as an SME.
The defendants argued that the claimant's financial position gave rise to a serious risk of non-recovery. Based on an account statement dated 31 December 2024 (made up to 31 March 2024), filed as exhibit GRUN 14, the defendants highlighted that the claimant's current liabilities (as of March 2024) exceeded its current assets, that the claimant had limited shareholder funds relative to the cost exposure in the revocation action, had significant liabilities and minimal reserves, and relied on intra-group or shareholder support. The defendants further stressed that the director was a major creditor of the claimant, and that a significant portion of the claimant's liabilities and a substantial part of its debtors were tied up with related associated companies, with the 'going concern' assumption resting on the continued financial support from these entities. Shareholder funds amounted to 27,103 GBP. The defendants submitted that a costs order amounting to about 112,000 € would be disproportionately large compared to the claimant's equity and free assets and would entirely depend on voluntary funding by associated companies or the director. The defendants were of the opinion that the enforcement of a costs order would be unduly difficult or burdensome as the claimant was thinly capitalized and not based in the UPC jurisdiction.
& Analysis
The order was issued by the full panel on 13 March 2026. The available text of the judgment is truncated and does not include the full reasoning or the final ruling on the R158 application.
Final Order & Ruling
The full text of the operative part of the order is not available in the provided excerpt, as the document is cut off before the court's final decision is rendered.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Milan (IT) Central Division- Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in La Siddhi Consultancy Limited vs Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)vsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, StravsKALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-30) under reference UPC_AEFD96D0F6, BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, Stra appeared in dispute with KALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-LINK ENTERPRISES FRANCE, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V.vsRespondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 186 937, with Atlas Global Technologies GmbH as plaintiff and four TP-LINK entities as defendants. The proceedings combine an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. With the consent of all parties, the court stayed the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the application filed by Defendants 2 to 4 on 17 April 2025.
Dolby International ABvsBeko Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought relief against defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. Upon the defendants' motion and after hearing the plaintiff, the court cancelled the oral hearing scheduled for October 16, 2025, because one of the defendants' lead attorneys was personally unable to attend and substitution was not feasible given the short notice and case complexity. The court indicated its intention to schedule a new hearing for February 4, 2026, giving the parties until October 21, 2025 to submit comments.
Align Technology, Inc.vsAngelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
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.