Short Summary
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.
Detailed Summary
This Order was issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 27 December 2024 in case UPC_CFI_100/2024, concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant, Ona Patents SL, a Spanish company founded in October 2023 with a share capital of only EUR 3,000, brought a patent infringement action against Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited. The Defendants requested security for legal costs in the amount of EUR 917,400, arguing that the Claimant was not in a financial position to bear the Defendants' legal costs if the action were dismissed. They pointed to the Claimant's minimal share capital, lack of publicly available financial information, its status as a non-practicing entity (NPE), and the fact that the exclusive licensee financing the proceedings would unlikely be liable for costs. They also noted that the Claimant and its licensee had previously been involved with another company that became insolvent when the licensee withdrew a funding promise.
The Claimant opposed the request, arguing there was no indication of doubts about its solvency and that the required security was too high.
The Court applied the framework established by UPC case law (including UPC_CoA_217/2024 Audi v. NST and UPC_CoA_548/2024 Arke v. SodaStream), holding that under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP, the burden of substantiation initially lies with the defendant, but once credible reasons are presented, it is up to the claimant to challenge them in a substantiated manner. The Court found that the Defendants had presented credible concerns: the Claimant was recently founded, became the alleged owner of the patent in suit shortly before filing the infringement action in March 2024, had no apparent financial reserves beyond the minimum share capital, and appeared to have no significant assets besides other patents. The Claimant failed to provide detailed information about its financial position, merely dismissing the Defendants' individual concerns without substantiating its own solvency.
On the amount of security, the Court considered the UPC Administrative Committee's guidelines (D-AC/9/24042023_D and D-AC/10/24042023_E), noting that the ceiling for recoverable costs is EUR 800,000, but that costs for representation are only reimbursable if reasonable and proportionate under R. 152 RoP. The Court also considered that realizing security typically costs about 110% of the secured amount, and balanced the Defendants' interest in security against the Claimant's right to an effective remedy under Art. 47 of the Charter.
The Court ordered the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000, either by deposit on the UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within six weeks of service of the order. The Court rejected the Defendants' request for a one-week timeframe (distinguishing PI proceedings in Ballinno v. UEFA) and rejected as premature the request for a default judgment if security was not provided. Leave to appeal was granted to ensure consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ona Patents SL vs Google Ireland Limited & Google Commerce Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Seoul Viosys Co., LtdvsLaser Components SAS
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd, a Korean LED chip manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 3 404 726 relating to ultraviolet light-emitting devices, brought an infringement action against Laser Components SAS before the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. The court found that Laser Components' UVC LED chips (PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35, and PKD-H02-F35) infringed claims 1 and 18 of the patent, and granted injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure orders, while reserving the question of damages.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order from the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3669828. The court addressed the defendants' request to postpone the oral hearing due to the unavailability of their representative, Mr. Würtenberger, who was expecting a child and planning parental leave. Balancing the claimant's right to efficient proceedings within one year against the defendants' right to representation of their choice, the court set the oral hearing for a date in 2025 and the interim conference for a date in 2024.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al.
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) addresses three applications in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP4066856 and EP4226941. The court granted GSK's application under R.263 RoP to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE, dismissed Moderna's R.9 application seeking to strike out late-filed submissions and evidence from GSK's Reply, and ordered GSK to provide a tabular overview of its 51 conditional auxiliary requests while rejecting Moderna's request to limit them to ten or dismiss them en bloc.
ApplicantvsRegistrar of the Unified Patent Court (Petition for Review APL_15506/2025)
The applicant sought entry on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a CEIPI diploma in 'Patent Litigation in Europe' obtained in July 2022. The Registrar rejected the application as filed out of time, and the applicant petitioned for review, arguing there was 'de facto continuity' between the unaccredited course under Rule 12 EPLC Rules and the later-accredited course under Rule 1. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the petition, holding that no such continuity exists and that the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 had expired before the application was filed.
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.