UPC: Security For Costs Not Required Where Claimant Is Backed By Appropriate Litigation Insurance

The UPC Court of Appeal has ruled that an order for security for costs is not justified where a claimant’s litigation insurance removes any real concern that an adverse costs order could not be enforced, overturning a €2 million security order made by the Munich Local Division (UPC_CoA_889/2025).

The decision arises from infringement proceedings brought by Syntorr against Arthrex, in which the Munich Local Division ordered the claimant to provide security by deposit or bank guarantee under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. Although Syntorr complied by providing a bank guarantee, it challenged the order, relying on its existing litigation insurance, which included an anti‑avoidance endorsement (intended to prevent the insurer from cancelling or avoiding payment).