1. Key takeaways
Security for Costs
The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance's
order requiring the appellant to provide €300,000 as security
for the respondent's costs (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP).
The Court emphasized the legitimate concern about the
appellant's ability to pay costs.
The amount was deemed consistent with the value of the case.
The Court of Appeal reiterated its limited power to review cost
decisions, emphasizing the Court of First Instance's
discretion. The review is restricted to whether the lower court
exceeded its discretion.
A change in the claimed damages does not automatically lead to a
lower security. The overall value of the case, including other
remedies like injunctions, remains relevant.
Grounds of appeal which are not raised within the period specified
for the Statement of grounds of appeal in R. 224.2 RoP shall not be
admissible (R.233.3 RoP).
2. Division
CoA
3. UPC number
U PC_CoA_596/2024
4. Type of proceedings
R 220.2 RoP Appeal on security for costs
5. Parties
APPELLANT (DEFENDANT IN THE R 158 RoP APPLICATION AND CLAIMANT
IN THE MAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
Suinno Mobile & Al Technologies Licensing Oy
RESPONDENT (APPLICANT IN THE R 158 RoP APPLICATION AND DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
Microsoft Corporation
6. Patent
EP 2 671 173
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 69 UPCA and
R. 158 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.
