- within Transport topic(s)
1 Key takeaways
Simply stating that a claimant's registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs according to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP
Generally, the fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a country that is not a Member State of the EU or the EEA is a relevant factor. Whereas Union law guarantees the recognition and enforcement of judgements of courts of Member States, including this Court, in other states, similar guarantees may not be in place for recognition and enforcement in non-member states (UPC_CoA_431/2025, Order of 9 July 2025, para. 14 – Chint New Energy v. Jingao Solar). However, according to the above-outlined principles, merely referring to this aspect is insufficient to demonstrate that enforcing a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. Rather, it is the Defendant's responsibility to provide evidence of the applicable foreign law in the territory where the order is to be enforced and of how this law is to be applied.
2 Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025
4 Type of proceedings
Request for security for costs in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings
5 Parties
Claimant: Leap Tools Inc.
Defendant: Wizart Inc.
6 Patent(s)
EP 3 859 566
7 Jurisdictions
UPC
8 Body of legislation / Rules
R. 158
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.
