Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 DECEMBER 2024

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

CD Munich, December 17, 2024, Order, UPC 252/2023

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

The UPC held that R. 352.2 RoP also applies to the release of a security for legal costs, even though this is not explicitly mentioned in Rule 158 RoP, which governs the imposition of such securities.

GermanyIntellectual Property

Accordion Heading

Content 1

1. Key takeaways

Release of Security for Costs Requires Independent Financial Standing

The UPC held that R. 352.2 RoP also applies to the release of a security for legal costs, even though this is not explicitly mentioned in Rule 158 RoP, which governs the imposition of such securities. The Court ultimately rejected Claimant's request to release the security as Claimant failed to demonstrate its own, independent financial capacity to pay potential cost awards, despite undergoing restructuring and being acquired by a financially sound parent company.

The Court emphasized that the financial standing of the party itself, not its parent company or group, is the decisive factor for assessing a request to release a security for costs.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from