Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 APRIL 2026

LD Munich, April 23, 2026, Order On Cost Security, UPC_CFI_617/2025

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 Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a panel review in a patent infringement case between Advanced Standard Communication LLC and Xiaomi entities concerning European Patent EP 3 016 464. The order addresses procedural matters under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 69(4) of the UPC Agreement.

GermanyIntellectual Property

1 Key takeaways

FRAND security of defendant does not relieve claimant from providing cost security

A bank guarantee provided by a defendant, as part of an objection of compulsory licence under antitrust law, as security for any potential licence payment obligations towards the claimant and thus to avert an injunction claim asserted by the claimant (“FRAND security”), does not, in principle, relieve the claimant of the obligation to provide security for costs, even if the amount of the bank guarantee exceeds the amount of the security for costs. Neither does the bank guarantee constitute a valuable asset of the claimant to which the defendant may have recourse for recovery of his costs, nor does the provision of the bank guarantee allow the conclusion that the defendant is obliged to pay licence fees to the claimant against which he could offset a claim for recoverable costs (sec. 21).

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