- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in European Union
- in European Union
1. Key takeaways
An intervener on the Defendant's side does not have to provide security for procedural costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP.
While the intervener is to be treated as a party pursuant to Rule 315.4 RoP and may be liable for cost reimbursement as such, this is a different question from whether they have to provide security pursuant to Rule 158 RoP. This – latter – question is answered in the negative, based on the Court of Appeal's reasoning in AorticLab v. Emboline (UPC_CoA_393/2025 APL_20694/2025).
2. Division
Local Division Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_245/2025
ORD_28635/2025 in ACT_13628/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Request for procedural security in main infringement action
5. Parties
CLAIMANT: SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. (Neutal, Austria)
DEFENDANT: Yunex GmbH (Munich, Germany)
INTERVENER: Shenzen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. (Shenzen, P.R. China)
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 643 717
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 158 RoP, Rule 315.4 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
