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
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.,, 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19809, USAvsThe Walt Disney Company, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 9, Disney Interactive, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521,
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SEvsRespondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of a cost determination application filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) following a patent infringement and revocation dispute with Avago Technologies. The Local Chamber Hamburg held that the court of first instance retains jurisdiction over the withdrawal of a cost determination application still pending before it, even when the main proceedings (infringement claim and counterclaims) have been appealed. The reporting judge further held that, as a substantive decision under Rule 156.2 RoP rather than a case management measure under Rules 331 ff RoP, the decision to permit the withdrawal falls within the reporting judge's sole and exclusive competence.
Supponor OyvsRespondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG (formerly AIM Sport Vision AG) against five defendants regarding European Patent No. EP3295663. The Helsinki Local Division had initially dismissed the action for lack of competence, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision and referred the case back. The present procedural order addresses AIM Sport's applications under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claims and grounds, and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant to the proceedings.
DexCom, Inc.vsAbbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott NV / SA, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott France, Abbott B.V., Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European Patent EP3435866, which relates to an analyte monitoring system (continuous glucose monitoring technology). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Paris Local Division addressed jurisdictional questions regarding the scope of dispute, the applicability of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the validity of the patent, finding novelty and no added subject-matter, but concluding that the claimed invention lacked inventive step.
Advanced Bionics AG , Advanced Bionics SarlvsMED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmb
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 4074373 titled 'MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS,' which relates to magnetic arrangements in implantable medical devices such as cochlear implants that are compatible with magnetic resonance imaging. Advanced Bionics AG filed the revocation action against MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, the registered proprietor, while MED-EL filed a counterclaim for revocation. The dispute centers on issues of insufficiency of disclosure, added matter, and lack of inventive step, with the panel noting that the inventor cannot be examined as a witness due to potential direct interest in the outcome.
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.