UPC_CFI_Security_Swarco – Swarco v Yunex and Shenzhen Dianming
- Court
- Local Division Munich
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Security for costs Background Swarco requested security for costs from Shenzhen Dianming. The judge-rapporteur ("JR") The JR referred to UPC_CoA_393/2025 (Aortic v Emboline) in which the Court of Appeal decided that a claimant cannot ask for security. Comment This representative did not read these weekly summaries. This representative also did not pick up that the CoA had already decided that a claimant cannot ask for security, confirming what is already stated in the UPCA.
Full Decision Text
Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_245/202 5 Procedural order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on 2 July 2025 CLAIMANT SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. Manfred Swarovski-Straße 1 - 7343 - Neutal - AT represented by: Alexander Koller (NOMOS Rechtsanwälte GmbH) DEFENDANT Yunex GmbH Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 - 81739 - Munich - DE represented by: Hosea Haag (AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwaelten mbB) DEFENDANT Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co, Ltd Floor 6, 38, Liu Xian 1st Road, Bao'An District - 518100 - Shenzhen - CN represented by: Martin Herzog (Herzog IP Patentanwalts GmbH) PATENT IN SUIT European Patent No. 2 643 717 PANEL/CHAMBER Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich English machine translation UPC_CFI_245/2025 2 PARTICIPATING JUDGES This Order was issued by the Presiding Judge Dr Matthias Zigann as Rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS German SUBJECT MATTER Application for the provision of security - R 158 RoP APPLICATIONS OF THE PARTIES The Claimant requests (App_23569/2025 UPC_CFI_245/2025): that the court order Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co, Ltd to provide appropriate security for legal costs in the amount of EUR 169,000.00 within 14 days, or possibly within a period to be determined by the court, for the costs of the legal dispute and any other costs that the Claimant may still incur in connection with the infringement proceedings in question, by depositing such security with the court or by providing a bank guarantee. The intervener applies (App_28415/2025 UPC_CFI_245/2025): that the court should 1. as a main request, reject the Claimant's request to impose a security on the intervener. 2. as an auxiliary request, if the Court grants an Order requiring the intervener to provide security, to substantially reduce the amount of the security to reflect both the actual amount in dispute and the limited role of the intervener in the proceedings. The Claimant has not submitted any comments on the intervener's observations. REASONS FOR THE ORDER An authorised intervener is to be treated as a party pursuant to R. 315.4 RoP, unless the court has ordered otherwise. Order No. 1 of 3 June 2025 states in this regard: ".Shenzhen Dianming shall be treated as a party" and under "INSTRUCTION TO THE CLERK": "Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co, Ltd shall be listed as an intervener of the Defendant in all related workflows and shall be treated as a party." The intervener can therefore be considered as a (co-)debtor for cost reimbursement claims in the event that it is unsuccessful. The question of whether security should be ordered for such possible cost reimbursement claims must be considered separately from this. UPC_CFI_245/2025 3 The Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_393/2025 APL_20694/2025 - AorticLab v. Emboline) ruled in the negative. Reference is made to the statements of the Court of Appeal. ORDER The application is dismissed. INFORMATION ON THE REVIEW BY THE ADJUDICATORY BODY Any party may request a review of this Order by the adjudicatory body in accordance with R. 333 RoP. The Order remains effective until it has been reviewed (R. 102.2 RoP). Matthia s ZIGANN Digitally signed by Matthias ZIGANN Date: 2025.07.02 15:33:35 +02'00' Dr Zigann Presiding Judge DETAILS OF THE ORDER Order no. ORD_28635/2025 in PROCEDURE NUMBER: ACT_13628/2025 UPC number: UPC_CFI_245/2025 Type of action: Action for infringement No. of the related proceedings Application No.: 28415/2025 Type of request: Template for procedural request
Key Holdings
- Claimant's request for security for costs rejected.
- Claimants cannot request security for costs (Aortic v Emboline precedent).
Tags
- Case Management
- Security for Costs