UPC CFI 617/2024

The FRAND bank guarantee provided by Defendants does not constitute a valuable asset of the Claimant and does not relieve Claimant of the obligation to provide security for costs, because it is impossible to predict whether any licence payment claim will materialise

Once Defendants presented credible reasons for doubting Claimant's financial position, the burden shifted to Claimant to substantiate its financial situation, which Claimant failed to do

ATE insurance not yet obtained cannot discharge an existing security-for-costs obligation; the Rules of Procedure only allow fulfilment by bank guarantee or deposit

The FRAND bank guarantee provided by Defendants exceeds the security-for-costs amount and therefore relieves Claimant of the obligation to provide security for costs

Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence of Claimant's poor financial position to justify a security-for-costs order, as being an LLC alone does not warrant such an order

The security-for-costs order should be revised to allow Claimant to provide proof of ATE insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement as an alternative to the EUR 300,000 security