UPC_CFI_1829/2026 – Biopsafe v Kaltek

Court
Local Division Milan
Date
Outcome
Denied
Sector
Other
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Security for costs Facts 1. Biopsafe filed an infringement action based on EP 2 720 617, EP 3 061 401 and EP 3 653 132 against Kaltek. 2. Kaltek filed an application for security for costs. The JR 1. The minimum share capital and the microenterprise status are as such no good indicators for the financial status of a company. 2. All other financial arguments are not convincing. 3. The JR dismisses the request. Comment The Court’s remark under 1) is, I would say, common sense. If you bother to react the further facts of the case and you know the case law of the Court of Appeal, then it becomes pretty clear that this was a mission impossible filed more than 6 months after the start of the proceedings which does not add to the credibility of the defendant’s case.

Key Holdings

  • Minimum share capital and microenterprise status are not sufficient indicators of a company's financial status for security for costs.
  • Financial arguments for security for costs must be convincing.
  • A request for security for costs was dismissed.
  • Late filing of a security for costs application can negatively impact the defendant's credibility.

Tags

  • Security for costs
  • Costs
  • Procedural

Related Cases