UPC CFI. March- April 2025: diverging views between the Hamburg and Munich Local Divisions regarding security for costs concerning the same Chinese claimant

Within two weeks the Local Division Hamburg and the Local Division Munich came to opposing views regarding  the need for security for costs in case of the same Chinese claimant in two cases between the same parties regarding two different solar cell patents 

The Hamburg proceedings

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, JingAo v Chint
Security for costs dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The sole reference to the past difficulties of service under the Hague Service Convention in Germany as a member state does not provide sufficient reasons. As long as the Defendants’ have not provided any well-reasoned facts that a decision on cost by the UPC cannot actually be enforced, it must be assumed that this is just as likely in the People’s Republic of China as in any other non-EU states.

IPPT20250509, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, JingAo v Chint
Panel review of dismissal of security for costs by order of 2 April 2025 rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Reference can be made to the contested order for the reasons. The Defendants have not put forward any new convincing arguments. 

The Munich proceedings

IPPT20250319, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jingao v Chint
Claimant must provide security for costs to Defendants in an amount of € 200.000 (Article 69(4) UPCA). With regard to a country that fails to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention, it has to be assumed that an order for reimbursement of costs by the UPC may not be enforceable in this country or just in an unduly burdensome way. Although the People's Republic of China has ratified the Hague Service Convention, European courts are facing significant difficulties in serving statements of claim and other documents in China. 

Image created with ChatGPT