Executive Summary
In a costs-related proceeding, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf dismissed Aarke AB's request for security of costs against SodaStream Industries Ltd. The Court emphasized that ordering such security requires concrete evidence demonstrating either financial instability or a high risk that an UPC judgment would be unenforceable. The defendant failed to substantiate its claims regarding the claimant's willingness to comply with cost decisions, especially given the claimant's affiliation with the financially strong PepsiCo group.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC requires specific evidence regarding financial risk or likelihood of unenforceability before ordering security for costs. The mere fact that a claimant is incorporated in Israel, or that they are pursuing IP rights, does not automatically justify such an order if their solvency and compliance cannot be credibly challenged.
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 SodaStream Industries Ltd. vs Aarke AB is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Topsoe A/SvsSYPOX GmbH
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC concerns a procedural matter related to an application for inspection and evidence gathering concerning EP 3 802 413 B1. The court did not rule on the merits but instead corrected factual errors in the initial filing, specifically regarding the precise addresses of the respondent's various locations. This highlights the importance of meticulous detail when submitting procedural applications to the UPC.
Martin LionelvsBITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request by an individual seeking public access to various documents related to a patent revocation action. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application, clarifying the scope of document disclosure under the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'written pleadings and evidence' must be lodged by parties to qualify for Rule 262(1)(b) access, excluding internal Registry communications or court orders.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.vsChint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a security for costs order. Chint appealed the Local Division's ruling, arguing that the order was legally flawed. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal entirely, not on the merits of the security requirement itself, but because the initial case management order did not meet the procedural requirements for appeal under UPC rules. This reinforces strict adherence to internal appellate procedures within the UPC.
Grundfos Holding A/SvsHefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
ALD France S.A.SvsNanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC decision, the Central Division addressed a challenge to the standing of the claimant in a revocation action. The court firmly established that for an independent interest in revocation proceedings, the claimant's own business activity is paramount, regardless of corporate group structures or control relationships. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'party identity' under EPC Art. 33(4) within the UPC framework, rejecting arguments based solely on parent-subsidiary links.
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.