UPC CoA, 20 May 2025, Chint v JingAo: No suspensive effect or expedition of appeal of security order

Rejected suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) and expedition of appeal (R. 9.3(b) RoP) of order to provide security in the amount € 200,000 by 6 June 2025. 

Appeal not devoid of purpose without suspensive effect, nu undue burden (R. 223 RoP) If Chint provides the security and the impugned order is subsequently revoked by the Court of Appeal, Chint may release the security. No undue burden: The mere fact that Chint will have to make arrangements with banks and its internal finance department is not sufficient, taking into account that a suspension of the impugned order may cause delays in the proceedings before the Munich Local Division. 

Decided without having heard JingAo, since the Court of Appeal must decide on an application for suspensive effect without delay (R. 223 RoP) and the outcome is in favour of JingAo. 

No justification for expedition of appeal (R. 9.3(b) RoP) at the expense of JingAo’s legitimate interest in having the appeals dealt with within the timeframe provided for by the RoP. The mere fact that a party will have to make arrangements with banks and its internal finance department, or that the impugned order is based on incorrect conclusions and contradictory reasoning is not sufficient.

IPPT20250520, UPC CoA, Chint v JingAo

For Court of First Instance issues regarding the same patent and parties