Rule 158 – Security for costs of a party

1. At any time during proceedings, following a reasoned request by one party, the Court may order the other party to provide, within a specified time period, adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred and/or to be incurred by the requesting party, which the other party may be liable to bear. Where the Court decides to order such security, it shall decide whether it is appropriate to order the security by deposit or bank guarantee.

2. The Court shall give the parties an opportunity to be heard before making an order for security. Rule 354 shall apply to the enforcement of the order.

3. The order for security shall indicate that an appeal may be lodged in accordance with Article 73 of the Agreement and Rule 220.2.

4. The Court shall, when specifying the time period in paragraph 1, inform the party concerned that if the party fails to provide adequate security within the time stated, a decision by default may be given, in accordance with Rule 355.

5. If a party fails to provide adequate security within the time stated, the Court may give a decision by default pursuant to Rule 355. 

Relation with the Agreement: Article 69(4).

Case law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260430, UPC CoA, Adobe v KEEEX
Appeal from security for costs order (R.  158 RoP) inadmissible in the absence of a leave to appeal (R. 220.2 RoP). For the sake of completeness, the claimant’s relative financial position compared with that of the defendant does not constitute a criterion.

IPPT20260428, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Application to revoke security for costs order rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 336 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA does not only apply to cases referred to in Art. 59-62 UPCA. […]. Nor does Art. 69(4) UPCA suggest that the requirement to provide security for costs should be the exception. The purpose of security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA is to protect the opposing party from difficulties in enforcing a claim for reimbursement of costs. There are no concerns regarding the security order under the Enforcement Directive. No basis for referral to CJEU (Article 21 UPCA). For there to be jurisdiction, the request for a preliminary ruling must concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter applicable to the case in the main proceedings. It is beyond reasonable doubt that the EU law, the Enforcement Directive and TRIPS agreement, do not prevent the imposition of a security for costs order. For this reason alone, a referral to the CJEU is out of the question. No extension of deadline for providing security (R. 9.3 RoP). Although the Court has the power to revoke or amend an order for security for costs under R. 335 RoP, applicants cannot usually rely on the Court granting an application for revocation or amendment.

IPPT20260414, UPC CoA, La Siddhi v Athena Pharma

Request for suspensive effect of security of costs order rejected for lack of exceptional circumstances. (Article 74 UPCA, Article 69 (4) UPCA, Rule 223 RoP, Rule 158 RoP). The applicant did not demonstrate: Manifest error in the decision,Irreversible harm or Violation of fundamental procedural rights.

IPPT20260407, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
€ 600.000 security for costs to be provided by appellant Suinno (Article 69(4) UPCA). Failure to pay previously awarded costs supports the conclusion that recovery of future costs is at risk. Lack of evidence of sufficient financial resources reinforces the need for security for costs. A counterclaim for revocation remains admissible and autonomous even after the infringement action ends, and does not prevent a request for security. 

IPPT20260224, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Application for rehearing rejected (Article 81(1) UPCA; R. 245 RoP). Non-compliance with order to pay security must lead to default judgment (R. 158.5 RoP). It is only under exceptional circumstances that the Court may derogate from this general rule. 

IPPT20260218, UPC CoA, Syntorr v Arthrex
Order for security for costs set aside in light of litigation insurance (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 RoP) . Careful consideration of the terms of a litigation insurance policy is of particular relevance to demonstrate the financial position of party. The insurance obtained by the appellant provided adequate security - no obligation to provide further security in the form of a deposit or a bank guarantee. Appelant sufficiently substantiated the validity and the terms of the insurance policy in first instance proceedings. 

IPPT20260203, UPC CoA, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Security for costs in appeal released following settlement (Article 69(4) UPCA, Article 79 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). R.352.2 RoP, which applies to security for enforcement, applied by way of analogy. This provision applies to security for enforcement but should be applied by way of analogy in the present case. There is a reason to do so given the conclusion of the proceedings and the settlement between the parties.

IPPT20251219, UPC CoA, Hefei v Grundfos
€ 75.000 security for costs against Chinese domiciled applicant. Even if the party is solvent, enforcement difficulties alone justify security. An order for security for costs can only be made against applicants, not in their favour (Article 69(4) UPCA). An ‘applicant’ is the party who initiates legal proceedings by filing an application. This means that, at first instance, an application by the claimant for an order to provide security for costs is not admissible. Nor does the infringement claimant’s right to make such an application arise from the fact that the defendant has brought a counterclaim for annulment. Such a counterclaim for annulment is a direct consequence of the infringement action brought by the claimant. An order requiring the defendant and counter-claimant to provide security for costs would unduly impair the defendant’s ability to defend himself. The party entitled to make an application under Art. 69(4) UPCA in the appeal proceedings is the respondent. This generally also applies where the respondent on appeal is the claimant. If both parties lodge an appeal, each party may only require security for costs in respect of the other party’s appeal costs. This also applies in the case of a cross-appeal. An exception applies where the defendant in the appeal proceedings rightly asserts a manifest error in the first-instance decision. In such cases, only the defendant may require security for costs for the appeal proceedings.

IPPT20251030, UPC CoA, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Security for costs already awarded in Milan LD cost decision for an amount of € 77,064.65 dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). The fact that, following this award of costs, Oerlikon has not yet received the corresponding payment is a matter of enforcement of the Costs decision, and does not justify a request for security of costs in proceedings before the Court of Appeal with regard to these costs already awarded. Furthermore, ordering a security for costs against Bhagat in relation to the costs incurred by Oerlikon in the CFI proceedings would, unlike the costs incurred in the appeal initiated by Bhagat, lead to providing a security for costs against the defendant in an infringement action, which is contrary to the position of this Court. Security for costs incurred by Oerlikon in the appeal proceedings awarded at 50% of the ceiling for recoverable at € 19.000.There are several facts and arguments raised by Oerlikon, and not denied by Bhagat, which give rise to a legitimate and real concern that an order for costs in the appeal may not be recoverable if the Court of Appeal decided to reject the appeal and to order Bhagat to pay the costs of the proceedings.

IPPT20250815, UPC CoA, Ballinno v UEFA
Security deposit for legal costs released with consent of parties (R. 158 RoP). R. 352.2 RoP, applied by analogy.

IPPT20250712, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Impugned order revoked and decision by default dismissing the infringement action given against Suinno for failure to provide security for costs (R. 355.2 RoP, R. 158.5 RoP). Decision by default of R. 355.2 RoP only applies when a decision by default is sought "against the defendant of the claim". It does not apply when a decision by default is requested by the defendant against the claimant because the claimant failed to take a step within the time limit foreseen in the RoP or set by the Court or it failed to appear at an oral hearing pursuant to R. 355.1(a) and (b) RoP. The rationale underlying R. 355.2 RoP is that a decision by default against the defendant by which the Court orders the remedy sought by the claimant or the counter-claimant does not only require that the Court finds that the conditions mentioned in R. 355.1 (a) or (b) RoP are met but also finds that the conditions, that the order of the remedy sought presupposes, are met based on the facts that are put forward by the claimant which justify the claims, providing the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude to give such decision. The effectiveness of security for costs ordered under R. 158 RoP is ensured by the power granted to the Court under RoP 158.5 RoP to give a decision by default if the party bound to provide a security for costs fails to do so. It is only under exceptional circumstances that the Court may derogate from this general rule and the reference to the status quo of the action may not justify such a derogation.

IPPT20250712, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Central Division has not exceeded the boundaries of its discretion in setting the amount of the security equal to 50% of the ceiling, meaning at € 300,000 (R. 158 RoP). Suinno's argument that the security for costs is "not commensurate with the real work it takes to communicate non-infringement or lack of validity to the Court" is not sufficiently substantiated. Its argument that a security for costs in the amount of € 100,000 is consistent with other security for costs already granted in the UPC do not give more reason to decrease the amount of the security for costs either, as it does not address the amount of legal costs and other expenses.

IPPT20250709, UPC CoA, Chint v JingAo
Security for costs granted against claimant residing in China (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). The lack of experience in enforcing UPC cost decisions in China, does not rule out the possibility that enforcement will be burdensome. The fact that China is outside the EU is a relevant factor. A history of litigants having difficulties enforcing judgments in China is an important factor. The fact that China has a formal procedure to enforce judgments does not detract from the fact that this procedure can, in practice, be burdensome.to be incurred by Microsoft in this particular case.

IPPT20250626, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon
Request rejected to release € 56.000 security placed by Ballinno (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The evidence presented by Ballinno on the balance on its bank account is insufficient since in the event of a procedural loss, Ballinno must be able to cover both its own litigation costs – which may well exceed the applicable ceiling – and that of the other parties. The provision of security does not hamper Ballinno’s access to justice. The disposal of an action under R. 360 RoP following a withdrawal does not necessarily preclude the application of the principle  that the unsuccessful party must bear the costs (Article 69(1) UPCA). Under the circumstances of the case it is not necessary to examine the merits of the case to determine who the successful part is (one party unsuccessful in both instances)

IPPT20250620, UPC CoA, AorticLab v Emboline
Security for costs can only be requested by defendants  (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA contains deliberate language to restrict the possibility to request a security order to a defendant. R. 158 RoP cannot be interpreted as merely extending the Court’s powers beyond those explicitly provided in Article 69(4) UPCA. A legal basis for the possibility for a claimant requesting an order that the defendant provide security for costs cannot be found in the Enforcement Directive. The claimant in an infringement action also cannot request security for costs in the counterclaim for revocation action, as the counterclaim is intrinsically linked to the infringement action and defences can only be brought by way of a counterclaim for revocation.

IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Harvard v Nanostring - I

Withdrawal of appeal by party consent without decision on costs (R. 265 RoP), following which the order to provide a security becomes devoid of purpose and security is released (Article 69.4 UPCA, R. 158 RoP).

IPPT20250114, UPC CoA, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Justified to allow discretionary review in appeal of orders of the judge-rapporteur (absent panel review) (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The question whether the judge-rapporteur could decide alone on security for costs of a party and deny leave to appeal is an access to justice issue which the Court of Appeal can raise of its own motion. Possible for judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge to order security for costs. R. 158 RoP does not exclusively reserve orders on security for costs for a panel of the Court. This flexibility allows the judges to organise the proceedings in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP) must be considered a case management order, making it subject to review by the panel (R. 333.1 RoP). System implies a broad interpretation of “case management decision or order”. Judge-rapporteur not competent to decide on leave to appeal in his order on security for cost (R. 158 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP, R. 333.1 RoP). Would circumvent the system with panel review. It is therefore only the panel, after panel review, that can decide on leave to appeal. 

IPPT20241217, UPC CoA, Curio v 10x
Application to the standing judge for suspensive effect of an appeal because of extreme urgency (R. 223.4 RoP) rejected regarding an order to the defendant to provide € 200.000 security for legal costs of the claimant (R. 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA). Within the discretion of the standing judge to dismiss the application without hearing the respondent. Extreme urgency under R 223.4 RoP is clearly distinct from, and does not require the impugned order to be “manifestly wrong”, but the Court is not convinced that the CFI was manifestly wrong and whether the CFI has given a correct interpretation of R 158 RoP regarding Art. 69(4) UPCA will have to be decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of the appeal proceedings.

IPPT20241129, UPC CoA, Aarke v Sodastream
Criteria for security for costs of a party (R. 158 RoP) Failing any guarantees or other special circumstances […] it is not relevant whether the claimant belongs to a - financially sound - group of companies. It is only the financial position of the claimant itself that is relevant. Whether a claimant is willing to reimburse the defendant if a cost order would be issued in favour of the defendant is not relevant either. The relevant criterion is whether, if that were the case, enforcement would be possible without undue burden. Irrelevant whether a cost order in favour of the defendant is to be expected. The Court should not engage in evaluating the likelihood of the outcome of the case when deciding on a request for security for costs. Not required that it is proven that enforcement is impossible. It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome.

IPPT20241127, UPC CoA, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Discretionary review of an order of judge-rapporteur on security for costs and denying leave to appeal granted because of an access to justice issue which has not yet been decided and which the Court of Appeal can raise of its own motion (R. 220.3 RoP, Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 333 RoP)

IPPT20241009, UPC CoA, Suinno v Micrsoft
Request for discretionary review in appeal (R. 220.3 RoP) only admissible, if leave to appeal against the impugned order is required (R.220.2 RoP) and the Court of First Instance refused to grant leave within 15 days of the order (R.220.3 RoP). Failure to indicate in the order for security that an appeal may be lodged in accordance with Article 73 of the Agreement and Rule 220.2 as required by R. 158.3 RoP cannot be that the unsuccessful party is deprived of its right to request leave to appeal an neither can the absence be understood as an implied leave to appeal. Instead, the unsuccessful party can still ask the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal by a separate decision.

IPPT20240927, UPC CoA, Volkswagen v NST
Information meant in R. 158.4 RoP – that if the party fails to provide adequate security within the time stated, a decision by default may be given in accordance with Rule 355 – does not necessarily have to be given in the Order to provide security for costs. In its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Volkswagen had not requested that this information be included in the Order itself either. The Court thus does not see the necessity for rectification of the Order (R. 353 RoP). It therefore suffices that the information as meant in R.158.4 RoP is provided to NST by this separate order.

IPPT20240917, UPC CoA, Audi v NST
Security for legal costs and expenses (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP) requires a legitimate and real concern to be substantiated and proven by the party making the request, while the relative financial position of the parties is not as such a criterion, especially where the (limited) level of funding provided to a special purpose patent enforcement entity is a deliberate business decision. 

IPPT20240917, UPC CoA, Volkswagen v NST.

Order set aside. NST as Claimant to provide security for costs to Volkswagen. (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). Costs to be ordered when the financial position of the claimant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be enforceable. Burden of substantiation and proof why an order for security for costs is appropriate is on the defendant making the request. Once reasons and facts have been presented in a credible manner, it is up to the claimant to challenge these in a substantiated manner.‘Precise evidence’ that NST ‘is or will be insolvent at the time a cost decision will be rendered’ is too high as standard of proof. NST’s argument that an SME should not be required to provide security for costs in favour of a massive automotive company such as Volkswagen is rejected. The relative financial position of the claimant as compared to that of the defendant is not as such a criterion under R.158 RoP. Existence of a patent portfolio does not prevent a legitimate and real concern that an order for costs may not be recoverable.

IPPT20240916, UPC CoA, ICPillar v ARM
Bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the US does not provide adequate security (R.158 RoP). As the reason for not allowing a bank guarantee to be issued by a US licensed bank is not solely based on nationality, but on substantive grounds, this is not contrary to any prohibition of discrimination, as ICPillar has suggested.

IPPT20240826, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon Sports
Adequate security for legal costs and other expenses equally available in appeal (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP, Rule 222(2) RoP). Ballinno ordered to provide security for legal costs in appeal in the (total) amount of € 25.000.  The provision of security for costs does not hamper access to justice. (Article 47 EU Charter)

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, GC Aesthetics v Establishment Labs

Request for security for costs granted against Costa Rican defendant. (Rule 158.1 RoP, Article 69 (4) UPCA). Enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica not considered to be “unduly burdensome”. The assessment to be made is whether “similar or identical” guarantees are in place for recognising and enforcing UPC costs orders in the relevant (non EU/EEA) states. The court requires a standard/reference to assess whether the duration leads proceedings to be "unduly" burdensome, as this implies a standard/reference in the sense of proceeding being "duly" burdensome. As such, where duration alone might not be sufficient to establish “undue burden, it could be taken into consideration when assessing the facts and circumstances regarding the assessment of the concerns of the Defendants. When setting the security amount, consideration should be given to the costs likely to be incurred by introducing the counterclaim for revocation

IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Leap Tools v Wizart

Request for security for costs dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). Simple reference to Claimant’s registered office in Canada does not demonstrate that a cost order would be unduly burdensome. Claimant’s annual revenue estimated to be less than EUR 20 million in 2025 , is not so low that one could assume, without further explanation, that a cost order may not be enforceable.

IPPT20260204, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Keeex v Adobe
No default judgment justified as a sanction for lack of diligence in providing a bank guarantee of € 200.000 within the ordered time limit of 16 January 2026 (R. 158.5 RoP, R. 355 RoP). It should be noted that R. 158.5 RoP provides that the reporting judge ‘may’ issue a default judgment, which leaves the judge with discretion in accordance with the principles of procedural efficiency as well as the principles of fairness and proportionality. KEEEX provided, within the time limit set by the order (i.e. 16 January 2026) proof that the sum of €200,000 was frozen in its account for this purpose and, in view of the reporting judge’s response dated 16 January 2026 at the end of the day, provided the documents corresponding to the required bank guarantee as early as the following 26 January.
 

IPPT20260313, UPC CFI CD Milan, La Siddhi v Athena
Order to provide security for costs of € 75.000 (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Once the defendant substantiates the risk, the claimant must rebut it with concrete evidence. Low net assets created doubt about ability to pay costs. The claimant did not properly contest the financial evidence. SME status does not exempt a party from security orders and the SME status must be substantiated.
 

IPPT20251212, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Asus v OPPO 
Claimant (a Taiwanese company) ordered to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 200,000. (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158.1 RoP). Enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, based on expert opinion. Taiwan is not a member of any international agreement which would govern the enforcement of foreign judgments in Taiwan. Based on the expert opinion, the timeframe to be expected for enforcement in Taiwan can vary from few months up to six years.

IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign 

Request for security for costs dismissed. (Rule 158 RoP).  Defendants have not argued that the financial position of the Applicant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that costs may not be recoverable. Defendants have not provided any evidence as to foreign law applicable in the territory where the order is to be enforced, or any evidence on the application of such law.  

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments

Application for security for costs confirmed. (R. 158 RoP) . Request to review order rejected (R. 333 RoP) Leave to appeal refused. Costs incurred by the Defendants likely to reach the confirmed amount given that the proceedings at hand are complex. It is not apparent that the amount of the security would unreasonably hinder the Claimant in the enforcement of its patent. 

IPPT20250904, UPC LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Security for costs regarding Claimant residing in China (Art. 69 (4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). The Local Division Mannheim has so far not been able to successfully serve a judicial document in the People's Republic of China (where Claimant resides) in any of the many proceedings pending before it, in particular in any SEP proceedings. It is therefore to be feared that enforcement against assets located there will be all the more difficult. Only half the requested amount of the upper limit (i.e., € 100.000) is set as security for the second defendant, since it is still unclear to what extent the first defendant will defend itself with a counterclaim for annulment, while a division of the upper limit between the parties […] is to be made.

IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek
Plaintiff ordered to provide € 150.000 security for the costs of the legal dispute and other costs (R. 158.1 RoP). Sufficient likelihood that any decision by the UPC on costs in favour of the second defendant could only be enforced with disproportionate difficulty against company based in the People's Republic of China.

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno

Security deposit for legal costs released with consent of parties (R. 158 RoP). R. 352.2 RoP, applied by analogy.

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
The security for procedural costs in the amount of EUR 56.000,- provided by Ballinno B.V. is to be released to the Defendants. Parties can use the security provided under R. 158 RoP as means to settle a pending application to cost decision, R. 150 RoP, in analogy to R. 265 RoP.

IPPT20250811, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syntorr v Arthrex
According to Rule 158(1) RoP, Claimant’s insurance policy is no adequate security. Claimant to provide adequate security for costs (€ 2 million) by deposit or bank guarantee.
 

IPPT20250806, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v AYLO
No separate proceedings for cost decision for costs incurred in connection with the application for, opposition to or defence against procedural orders ( Rules 150 RoP), including orders for security for costs pursuant to R. 158 RoP. Instead, these costs will be assessed as part of the total costs of the proceedings in the cost assessment proceedings pursuant to R. 150 RoP following the decision on the merits.

IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Claimant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Defendants 3. and 5. to 8. in the amount of EUR 100,000 (R. 158 RoP). Request not late filed. Rule 158.1 RoP clearly states that security for costs may be requested at any time during the proceedings. Waiting for the Claimant's annual financial results and the Court's ruling [of 14 April 2025] on the request for security for costs filed by Defendants 1., 2. and 4. cannot be considered an abuse of rights or bad faith conduct intended to harm the Claimant.

IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
The cap on costs of Article 1(3) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 March 2023 applies in each instance of the court proceedings, regardless of the number of parties or patents involved. (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Consequently, when considering patent infringement, where both an infringing manufacturer and an infringing distributor are involved in two separate but parallel proceedings concerning the same patent and the same act of infringement, a unitary approach is warranted. The cap established in Article 1(3) would be otherwise violated. 

IPPT20250703, UPC CFI, LD München, Headwater v Motorola
Security for costs for the benefit of defendants in infringement action, claimants in counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). Even if the defendant in an infringement action is formally the claimant in a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, he may, […] also request security for the costs incurred and/or to be incurred by him in bringing the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity. Otherwise, the defendant could be unreasonably restricted in his legal defence because he is forced to file a counterclaim for revocation in order to object to the validity of the contested patent without any prospect of reimbursement of the costs incurred as a result.

IPPT20250702, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex
Security for costs cannot be requested regarding a party intervening on behalf of the defendant (R. 315. RoP, Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP)

IPPT20250619, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Voluntary intervention by receiver in insolvency of NJ Diffusion allowed (R. 313 RoP). The consequences of this voluntary intervention will be decided in the substantive decision to be made. Request for security for costs inadmissible (R. 158 RoP). The panel notes, on the one hand, that this judicial guarantee provided for in R. 158 RdP does not condition the continuation of the action before the JUB, since only the involvement of the collective proceedings bodies and the declaration of claims in the proceedings constitute the sine qua non conditions for the resumption of the ongoing action, and on the other hand,  that the granting of this judicial guarantee to one of the creditors of the debtor in receivership would be contrary to the principle of equality of creditors that governs collective proceedings under French law.

IPPT20250615, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Security for costs dismissed (R. 158 RoP). It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome. The burden of showing this is on the applicant of an order for security for costs. To this end, the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order shall be enforced, but also its application. Furthermore, the Court notes that, according to the UPC case law, US courts routinely recognise and enforce judgments of foreign courts. Furthermore, the Defendants have failed to submit any substantiating facts indicating a tangible risk of insolvency. In particular being an NPE as such is not sufficient to give rise to a risk of insolvency of the Claimant.

IPPT20250530, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
Defendants to provide security for the Claimant’s legal costs in the (total) amount of € 75.000 regarding the counterclaim for revocation (Article  69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide for an obligation on the part of the Defendant to provide security.  A Claimant can request a Defendant to provide security for costs to the extent that it concerns the counterclaim for revocation as a Defendant acting as Counterclaimant falls within the scope of Art. 69(4) UPCA

IPPT20250521, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens
No security for costs (R. 158 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). Also the claimant is permitted to submit a request for security for costs, as this rule does not restrict such actions to a defendant only. It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome. The burden of showing this is on the applicant of an order for security for costs. To this end, the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order shall be enforced, but also its application. The Defendants have not provided evidence of the applicable foreign law, just an argument about such, nor have they provided evidence about the application of such law. The Claimant argues that the enforcement of UPC orders and decisions is not unduly burdensome in the United States of America. The Court notes that, according to the UPC case law, US courts routinely recognise and enforce judgments of foreign courts

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. There is no experience available with regard to the enforcement of decisions on costs of the UPC in the People’s Republic of China.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Claimant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Defendants 1., 2. and 4. in the amount of EUR 100.000  (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The Claimant has not provided any convincing evidence to substantiate its financial situation and, in particular, its ability to bear the possible costs of the proceedings. In its statement, the Claimant confirms that the solar market is currently difficult (for everyone in this market), in particular in view of the various infringing activities affecting its business.

IPPT20250411, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
Eoflow to provide security for costs of € 500.000 (R. 158 RoP). The company's overall situation appears to be not positive, either from the point of view of its assets and liabilities or from the point of view of its sales and expansion prospects, and it is at least doubtful from the point of view of its liquidity.

IPPT20250409, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Promosome v BioNTech
Agreement by parties to provide security for costs and by way of deposit (R.158 RoP). The request to give a decision by default pursuant to Rule 355 RoP in the event the Claimant fails to provide the ordered security within the time specified by the Court is rejected is currently unfounded and premature. 

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.

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. 

IPPT20250226, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
No security for costs (R. 158 RoP). In view of the positive financial situation of NJ DIFFUSION and in view of the estimated amount of the costs likely to be recovered, there is no evidence of a risk that the claimant will be unable to pay this sum - or even encounter difficulties in doing so - if she is ordered to reimburse the defendant's costs. Order is a case management order, which is not subject to appeal but subject to panel review (R. 333 RoP)

IPPT20250218, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aylo Premium v Dish Technologies 
Security for costs can also be applied for by claimant (R. 158 RoP). R. 158.1 RoP provides that, at the request by “one party” the Court may order “the other party” to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the requesting party, which the other party may be liable to bear. Request rejected. Claimant has not shown to the conviction of the Court that Defendant will not be able to pay the litigation costs if it should lose the lawsuit.

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Withdrawal of the provisional measures; each party shall bear its own costs,  Security released (R. 265 RoP,  R 158 RoP) 

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Snowpixie v Golf Tech
Order to provide security for costs  of € 62.600 by a small enterprise (R. 158.5 RoP). Based on Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of May 6, 2003, concerning the definition of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, May 20, 2003, p. 36; for the application of this Recommendation, see ECJ, Judgment of March 10, 2021 – C-572/19 P), is at least a small enterprise in view of its turnover and number of employees. Particularly in the case of small enterprises, care must be taken to ensure effective access to justice. Any required security deposit must therefore be set at a level that allows for effective access to justice and prevents the enterprise’s action from being dismissed by default judgment due to a security deposit it cannot afford (Rule 158.5 RoP). If a small business reports an operating loss in its most recent annual accounts and there are insufficient assets available as security, a security deposit must be ordered in accordance with Rule 158 of the RoP at the request of the opposing party. When determining the amount of the security deposit, considerations of equity that will be relevant to the subsequent assessment of costs must be taken into account. This is because the assessment of the security must be based on the costs to be fixed in accordance with Article 69 of the UPCA; under Article 69 of the UPCA, considerations of equity may preclude the bearing of costs in whole or in part. A party who is able to pay both their own costs (court fees and legal representation costs) and a security set by the court is capable of bearing the costs. Legal aid cannot be granted in this case

IPPT20241227, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Google 
€ 500.000 security for costs (R. 158 RoP). There are no apparent financial reserves other than the minimum amount of share capital. Even any financial support from third parties, such as the licensee, is not certain, apart from the question of whether it would be sufficient from a legal point of view. Finally, the Claimant seems to have no other significant assets beside other patents.

IPPT20241227, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno - II
A request for additional security actually amounts to a request to modify the security already granted by increasing its amount (R. 158 RoP). The first two arguments (increasing of costs related to the progression of the written procedure and respondent’s admission in the appeal proceedings of lack of financial resources) constitute new facts that must be considered in the assessment on whether to amend its previous order. The Court is of the view, however, that these circumstances are not such as to require a reassessment of the adequacy of the security already ordered.

IPPT20241227, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno - I
An order granting security for costs (R. 158 RoP) can be revoked or amended by the Court if there is a change in the factual circumstances underlying the order. Granting this opportunity to the parties, even in absence of a specific and direct legal provision, is necessary to render the measure consistent with its purpose, namely to address the risk of non-recovery or significant difficulty in recovering costs of the proceedings. Security amount for costs determined by the “value” of the action which is to reflect the “objective interest pursued” by the claimant at the time of the filing of the action (R. 370.6 RoP) and any subsequent modifications – like a subsequent reduction of damages – is of no relevance

IPPT20241217, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard
Request to release the security rejected (R. 352(2) RoP). The Court has the power to release a security for legal costs and other expenses imposed under Rule 158 RoP on the basis of Rule 352.2 RoP. Despite the absence of a specific provision as part of Rule 158, the Court has the power to release a security on the basis of Rule 352.2 RoP, either directly or, if necessary, by way of analogy. Chapter 6 of the RoP (“Security for Costs”) – in which Rule 158 RoP is placed – does not contain a provision for the release of a security for legal costs and other expenses that has been imposed by the Court on a party. A security should be released when the reasons for imposing the security have ceased to exist. This will generally be the case where a final and non-appealable judgement has removed the possibility of the event for which security was ordered. Further, if the facts and circumstances that led to imposing the security order have materially changed so that the balance of interests is in favour of releasing a security, this can also be a reason to release the security.

IPPT20241126, UPC CFI, LD Munich, GXD-Bio v Myriad
Claimant to provide security of € 112,000 for legal costs and other expenses (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158.1 RoP). Based on the undisputed facts, there is legitimate and real concern that a possible cost order might not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible cost order by the UPC may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. There are significant doubts as to whether the Claimant, in the event of losing the proceeding, has sufficient funds for covering Defendants´ recoverable costs of the current lawsuit

IPPT20241203, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Defendant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Claimant in an amount of EUR 200,000. Defendant can also be ordered to provide security for legal costs (R. 158 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). It follows from the above that there is no conflict between Rule 158 RoP, in accordance with which a security may be imposed on a “party”, which includes a defendant, and the UPCA. In particular, there is no conflict with Article 69(4) UPCA, which does not exclude imposing a security on a defendant, and there is also no conflict with Article 56(1) UPCA as Article 69(4) provides the legal basis for a security, which may also be ordered against a defendant. In other words, the RoP comply with the UPCA (cf. Article 41(1) UPCA). Accordingly, the Defendant´s interpretation, on which its admissibility objections are based, is dismissed. In the absence of information on actual costs an amount of  EUR 200,000 is deemed adequate security 

IPPT20241014, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Ballinno ordered to provide security for legal cost of claimant  Kinexon in revocation action (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). It is not necessary that the party claiming security has the formal position of a defendant in the lawsuit in which it claims security. It only matters whether it reacts to a claim of the other party. Therefore, a party is also defendant in the sense of Art. 69 (4) UPCA if it responds with a revocation action against an application for provisional measures. Irrevocable commitment to the Claimant in the proceedings not to further pursue its infringement case unless and until the Court of Appeal provisionally rules that the method and system, which Kinexon provided to UEFA infringes a valid EP 067 […] does not alter the risk that a possible cost order against Ballinno might not be recoverable by Kinexon and does not change the fact that Kinexon has costs which arise in reaction to Ballinnos application for provisional measures.

IPPT20240927, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Suinno to provide security of € 300,000 for legal costs (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Undisputed that respondent’s business model is exclusively characterized by the enforcement of patents, namely the patent-in-suit, and asserting corresponding license claims; respondent does not generate sufficient income or other cash flow and no equity capital at all, does not maintain any other business, let alone has any physical assets, and does not even have an own office space.

IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke
Request for panel review of dismissal of security for costs by judge-rapporteur dismissed (R. 333.1 RoP, R. 158 RoP)The judge-rapporteur correctly held that, under these principles, neither a financial risk nor a likelihood of unenforceability is presented to the Court. The Claimant, as part of the PepsiCo group, is financially able to comply with a decision on costs. This has not, in any event not sufficiently, been contested by the Defendant. In fact, the Defendant confirms in its Application (par. 6 “no insolvency risk is at hand”.) The fact that the Pepsico group is not a party to these proceedings (par. 29-30 Application) does not mean that the Claimant is unable to comply with a possible decision on costs. 

IPPT20240820, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril - II
Application for security for legal costs dismissed (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). No indication that the Claimant would lack assets or will to pay costs of the proceedings and other costs incurred (or to be incurred) by Defendants, which the Claimant may have to bear. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that a possible order for costs by the UPC would not, or only in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable in the United States.

IPPT20240805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke
Security for costs dismissed (Rule 158 RoP). Neither a financial risk nor a likelihood of unenforceability is presented to the Court. It is not disputed by the parties that the claimant, as part of the PepsiCo group, is financially able to comply with a decision on costs. The defendant's sole argument that it had doubts as to the claimant's compliance with a decision could not be substantiated by facts. 

IPPT20240730, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
Intervention admissible on the condition that the intervener deposits a security for costs in the amount of EUR 134.000 with the UPC by 20 August 2024 ((Rule 314 RoP). While Article 69(4) UPCA only provides for the provision of a security for costs by the plaintiff, Rule 158 RoP extends the circle of addressees of such an order to "the parties" and thus also to the intervener if it is admitted. Legal interest in the result of the action requires a direct and present interest in the issuance of the order or decision requested by the supported party, which in any case can be affirmed if it is alleged that the product purchased from the intervener infringes the patent in suit (Rule 313(1) RoP).

IPPT20240521, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ARM v ICPillar
Security for costs of € 400.000 ordered because of potential inability for Claimant to cover the legal costs in case of losing (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP). Factors to be considered when ordering a security order include the financial position of the other party that may give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible cost order might not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible cost order by the UPC may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. In the present case, there are no exceptional circumstances that would be considered as unduly burdensome to justify the order. Nor does the mere fact that the Respondent is domiciled in the United States of America justify an order for security for costs. Potential risk of inability to cover the legal costs of the other party in case of losing the litigation. Respondent in its written comments did not provide any indication of its financial situation. Insurance taken out to cover the financial risks is insufficient for two reasons. Firstly, the purpose of this type of insurance is to provide a financial protection for ICPILLAR (the insured party), and not to protect the potential rights of the ARM entities (the applicants of the Security for cost request). Secondly, the full terms of the said insurance have not been disclosed and it is hence unclear what are the actual terms of the insurance.

IPPT20240514, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
Insolvency risk of the plaintiff is the relevant factor for security for costs of a party, not enforcement not enforcement risk in case of an EU domiciled plaintiff (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP). Claimant to provide security for the legal costs of the Defendants in the (total) amount of € 56.000. As the starting point the undisputed facts point into the direction of the argument of the defendants that there is a risk of insolvency of the claimant when it comes to the reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings. […]. In the present case the Panel has especially considered that the patent in suit was not only just recently assigned to the claimant, but that the transfer was performed months after the assignor entered into a pre-trial correspondence about a possible patent infringement with the defendants 2) and 3). This raises the concern that the purpose of this transfer might be to facilitate this litigation without any financial risk to applicant. 

IPPT20240430, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
No security for legal costs of Defendant in urgent proceedings (Article 69(4)) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP, Rule 211.1(d) RoP).

IPPT20240423, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Volkswagen et al. v NST 
Request for security denied: balance of interests in favour of the Plaintiff (Article 69, Rule 158 RoP). Factors to be taken into account when issuing an order for security include the financial position of the other party which may give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible order for costs by the UPC may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. The imposition of a security for legal costs serves to protect the position and (potential) rights of the defendant, who has not chosen to commence the main proceedings. The protection of the defendant must be balanced against the burden on the claimant caused by an order to provide security. The fact that the Plaintiff has its registered office in a non-EU country, i.e. in the United States, cannot be relevant, as this would be a form of a priori discrimination, based precisely on the nationality of its registered office/domicile, which is not provided for in any source of law.

IPPT20240304, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Possible for the parties by mutual agreement to establish an “attorneys’ eyes only’’ restricted-access group for confidential information and exclude access by a natural person from each party, provided that fair trial is not affected. (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP, Article 9 Trade Secret Directive). Principle of fair trail not likely to be impaired where the confidential information is a side issue (providing security for costs of a party, Rule 158 RoP). Confidential Information:non-public financial information concerning sales and investments is information that is generally considered to be confidential, especially vis-à-vis a competitor.

IPPT20240213, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Defendant’s request for security for costs (“cautio iudicatum solvi”) rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA; Rule 158 RoP, Article 24 UPCA). Protecting the rights of the defendant should be balanced against the right of the claimant to enforce its patent rights. The main rationale for the cautio is to secure the enforceability of a potential cost order. If such order is directly enforceable after it is granted, it can serve as grounds not to allow a cautio at the start of or during the proceedings. UPC decisions and orders are directly enforceable in the Netherlands in accordance with Art. 82 UPCA, Art. 71d Brussels and R. 354.1 RoP. A cautio in this case is hence not justified because of the risk that a possible cost order in favour of Bioo will not be directly enforceable. This contrasts with the situation decided by the CD Munich [IPPT20231030]  – [....] – on which Bioo relies. In that case the relevant claimant was domiciled outside the EU and no treaty regarding the execution of judgments was in place. As a rule, the court finds that a cautio based solely on (expected) material unenforceability should be awarded in exceptional circumstances only. The court agrees that under the circumstances in the present situation, which involves two competing SMEs with limited finances, the financial strain on the claimant can be a serious impediment to enforcement of its rights and to access to justice, and hence for granting a cautio. Lastly the court takes into consideration that according to Dutch national procedural law it is not possible to give a cautio vis-a-vis plaintiffs domiciled or residing in the Netherlands (and hence in the EU) under any circumstances, and also if there is good reason to doubt the possibility of recovery of a potential cost order due to the financial situation of the claimant.

IPPT20231030, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard

Order to provide security for legal costs and other expenses pursuant to Rule 158.1 RoP to the amount of EUR 300,000. Additional (procedural) burden and uncertainty on the party seeking to enforce a UPC (cost) judgement in the UK compared to other (EU) jurisdictions. This is a factor that weighs in favour of ordering a security. Legitimate concern that the Claimant will not have adequate financial means to cover the legal expenses that it may be liable for. Submitted that the injunction ordered in other case by Munch Local Division would be “existence-threatening”. Claimant has not provided any information as to its own, independent, financial position nor has it pointed at any of its own assets that could be suitable for redress should it be liable for any legal costs. Instead, it relies solely on the cash position of its group of companies. The group, however, in its own words, has never been profitable and therefore relies on money from investors.

IPPT20231020, UPC CFI, LD Helsinki, AIM Sport Vision v Supponor

No security for costs (Rule 158 RoP). No sufficient evidence of  risk of insolvency and evidence indicates that the Applicant will have the financial means to cover any potential legal costs. Not appropriate for the Court of First Instance to order security for the costs of potential future proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

IPPT20230929, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril

No security for the legal costs and other expenses (Rule 158 RoP) ordered. It requires a showing that the financial circumstances of the other party give rise to fears that any claim for reimbursement of costs cannot be served or that, despite sufficient financial resources, enforcement of a decision on costs appears to be impossible or fraught with particular difficulties. In the United States of America, judgments of foreign courts and the associated cost decisions can generally be recognised and enforced. It has not been submitted or is otherwise apparent that this could be different with decisions and orders of this court or is seriously to be expected. Such a request cannot be made the subject of Preliminary objection (Rule 19 RoP). The possible subjects of a Preliminary objection are exhaustively listed in Rule 19(1) RoP. Motions pursuant to Rule 158(1) RoP are not listed. 

IPPT20230828, UPC CFI, LD Helsinki, AIM Sport Vision v Supponor
Procedural order in main proceedings and provisional measures proceedings concerning issues to be addressed in written submissions, invitation to an oral hearing in front of the whole panel, including a technically qualified judge, and instructions regarding oral hearing.