UPC CoA 301/2024

The Court of Appeal dismissed ICPillar LLC's appeal against a first-instance order requiring security for costs (R. 158 RoP). The court upheld the finding that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank does not provide adequate security under R. 158 RoP, and that this requirement is substantively justified and does not constitute unlawful nationality discrimination. The court also confirmed its discretion to disregard late-filed evidence even absent objection from the other party (R. 222.2 RoP).

The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order in an appeal concerning security for costs and a confidentiality application under Rule 262A RoP, granting ARM an opportunity to amend its Statement of response to address the unredacted version of a confidential exhibit, and setting a schedule for any additional evidence and response.

The Court of Appeal addressed ICPillar's application for confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP regarding Exhibit 4 to the Statement of Appeal in proceedings concerning security for legal costs, in the underlying infringement action against ARM Limited.

The Court of Appeal Panel 2 issued a procedural order in the appeal by ICPillar LLC against an ARM-group request for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) granted by the Paris Local Division. The order addressed a technical problem with CMS notification and ICPillar's R. 262A confidentiality application submitted alongside its statement of appeal, dealing with service and procedural steps only.

Court of Appeal (Panel 2) procedural order rejecting ICPillar LLC's application for suspensive effect of a Paris Local Division order requiring ICPillar to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 (R. 158 RoP), and also rejecting ICPillar's subordinate request for expedition of the appeal. The Court held that suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA is in principle available for R. 220.2 RoP orders (notwithstanding R. 223.5 RoP), but that only exceptional circumstances justify granting it. No exceptional circumstances existed here – the risk of a default judgment if ICPillar fails to comply is an inherent feature of non-compliance, and is not sufficient to grant suspensive effect.