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
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.