1 Key takeaway
Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA / R. 158 RoP may be ordered where the claimant's own financial situation gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a future costs award may not be recoverable or enforceable.
When assessing security for costs, the UPC looks at the financial position of the claimant itself, not at the financial strength of associated companies or the wider group absent guarantees or other special circumstances.
A claimant that does not substantively rebut the defendant's evidence on financial weakness risks having that financial position treated as undisputed under Rule 171.2 RoP.
Bare reliance on alleged SME or micro-enterprise status is insufficient to reduce security where the claimant does not substantiate the relevant criteria such as headcount, turnover and balance-sheet total.
The Court is not required to set security at the ceiling for recoverable costs; it may set a lower amount based on its own estimate of likely first-instance costs and proportionality considerations.
2 Division
Central Division Milan
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_927/2025
4 Type of proceedings
Revocation action – decision on an application for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP
5 Parties
Claimant:
La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd., United Kingdom
Defendants
1. Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, France
2. Substipharm, France
6 Patent(s)
EP 3 592 333 (UP)
7 Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 69(4) UPCA
Art. 69(1) UPCA
R. 158.1 RoP
R. 171.2 RoP
UPC_CFI_927-2025_LaSiddhi v Athena_
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.
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.
