Executive Summary
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court ruled that since the underlying infringement actions had been withdrawn by the claimant (NTS), the requirement for NTS to maintain security for legal costs was no longer justified. The court applied R. 352.2 RoP by analogy to grant the release of the deposited funds.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Luxembourg (LU), this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a.vsKingtyre Deutschland GmbH, Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement case involving Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. and two Kingtyre entities regarding patent EP2519412. A settlement was reached between Pirelli and one defendant, Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, leading the Court to confirm this agreement under Rule 365 RoP. Crucially, the Court allowed the litigation to continue against the second defendant, Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd., while also granting a partial reimbursement of court fees for the claimant.
Polidoro S.p.a.vsBekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 037 175, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim granted Polidoro S.p.a. an extension of one week to file its reply brief and defense against Bekaert's counterclaim for revocation. The court acknowledged that delays in providing unredacted documents necessitated this procedural adjustment. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to ensuring fair procedure, even when dealing with complex litigation involving both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims.
Hologic, Inc.vsSiemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
Organon Heist B.V.vsGenentech, Inc.
This UPC Local Division order addresses the review of prior 'ex parte' orders for evidence preservation and inspection concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The court provided crucial procedural guidance, outlining a rigorous two-step assessment process for reviewing these types of orders under R. 197.3 RoP. It also clarified the legal standard required to prove 'about to be infringed' in relation to subsequent infringement proceedings. This decision is highly significant for practitioners managing evidence gathering and risk assessment within the UPC framework.
La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd.vsAthena Pharmaceutiques SAS; Substipharm
In this UPC CFI decision concerning a revocation action, the court addressed the defendants' request for security for costs against the claimant. Despite the claimant asserting SME status and arguing that such an order would restrict access to justice, the Court found the defendant's arguments regarding the claimant's financial vulnerability credible. Consequently, the court ordered the claimant to provide €75,000 in security within six weeks, setting a specific amount while rejecting the defendants' demands for higher sums or faster deadlines.
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.