Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 JULY 2026

CoA, 02 July 2026, Order On Security For Costs, UPC-CoA-935/2025

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 Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court has issued three significant procedural rulings addressing the admissibility of late invalidity attacks, the scope of withdrawal provisions, and the proper forum for cost decision applications. These decisions clarify critical procedural requirements that will impact litigation strategy before the UPC.

GermanyIntellectual Property
Markus Ackermann
Markus Ackermann
Author LinkedIn connections

Art. 69(4) UPCA permits an order for security for costs only against the applicant

Art. 69(4) UPCA permits an order for security for costs only against the applicant, but not in the applicant’s favour. “Applicant” is the party that initiates the relevant proceedings by lodging the procedural act by which those proceedings are commence (see orders of 28 April 2026, UPC_CoA_21/2026, Suinno v Microsoft; 9 December 2025, UPC_CoA_622/2025, Hefei v Grundfos; 30 October 2025, UPC_CoA_8/2025, Oerlikon v Bhagat; 20 June 2025, UPC_CoA_393/2025, AorticLab v Emboline). Accordingly, at first instance, there is no legal basis for granting security for costs at the request of a claimant in infringement proceedings or in a revocation action.

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.

Register for freeORLog in

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.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Kraftwerk Sampling Ruling: Pastiche Finds Its Rhythm

Germany's highest civil court has ruled that an unlicensed sample from Kraftwerk's 1977 track "Metall auf Metall" used in a hip hop song qualifies as lawful pastiche under EU copyright law. This landmark decision, concluding a nearly 30-year legal dispute, establishes new parameters for when sampling can constitute creative engagement rather than mere copying, though it stops short of providing blanket protection for all unauthorized samples.
European UnionIntellectual Property
Lewis Silkin
Lewis Silkin
Article

Der Bundesgerichtshof wendet die „Pastiche“-Doktrin des EuGH an und bestätigt die Rechtmäßigkeit von Musik-Sampling

The German Federal Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling in the decades-long "Metall auf Metall" litigation, applying the EU Court of Justice's framework to determine whether unauthorized music sampling can qualify as lawful "pastiche" under copyright law. The decision examines whether a two-second rhythm sequence from Kraftwerk's 1977 recording, used repeatedly in a 1997 song, constitutes permissible artistic dialogue or copyright infringement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Local Division Düsseldorf, September 1, 2026, Decision On Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_307/2025

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg