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

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. 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.