Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H., seeking an order requiring the intervenor, Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 169,000.00 in connection with an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717 against defendant Yunex GmbH. The intervenor opposed the application, requesting its rejection or, alternatively, a significant reduction in the amount. The presiding judge rejected the application, following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in a prior decision (AorticLab v. Emboline), holding that security for costs should not be ordered for an admitted intervenor even though such an intervenor is treated as a party for cost reimbursement purposes.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717. The plaintiff is SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H., an Austrian company based in Neutal. The defendant is Yunex GmbH, based in Munich, Germany. Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese company based in Shenzhen, was admitted as an intervenor supporting the defendant. The order was issued by the presiding judge, Dr. Matthias Zigann, sitting as the reporting judge of Panel 1 of the Local Chamber Munich, on July 2, 2025, in German.
The plaintiff filed an application requesting that the court order the intervenor, Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs within 14 days (or within such other period as the court might set) by depositing the sum with the court or by furnishing a bank guarantee. The amount sought was EUR 169,000.00, intended to cover the costs of the proceedings and any further costs the plaintiff might incur in connection with the infringement action. The intervenor opposed this application, primarily requesting its rejection and, in the alternative, a substantial reduction of the security amount to reflect both the actual value in dispute and the limited role of the intervenor in the proceedings. The plaintiff did not file any submissions in response to the intervenor's arguments.
& Analysis
The court first addressed the legal status of the intervenor. Under Rule 315.4 of the Rules of Procedure, an admitted intervenor is to be treated as a party unless the court orders otherwise. The court noted that in its order of June 3, 2025, it had expressly directed that Shenzhen Dianming be treated as a party in all related workflows. As a consequence, the intervenor could potentially be held liable as a co-debtor for cost reimbursement claims in the event of an unsuccessful outcome. The court then distinguished this question from the separate issue of whether security for costs for such potential reimbursement claims should actually be ordered. On this second question, the court aligned itself with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the earlier decision AorticLab v. Emboline (UPC_CoA_393/2025 APL_20694/2025), expressly referring to that decision's reasoning and concluding that security for costs should not be ordered in these circumstances.
Final Order & Ruling
The presiding judge rejected the plaintiff's application for security for costs in its entirety. The order further notes that any party may request review of the order by the full panel under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure, but that the order remains effective until such review (Rule 102.2 of the Rules of Procedure).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd vs Respondent 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.