UPC CFI 360/2026

At the UPC: Nixu FL IP Protection LLC (5 cases)·Infoblox Inc. (3 cases)

• 2026-06-10
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Hamburg Local Division ordered the Claimant (Nixu FL IP Protection LLC) to provide security for the Defendants' legal costs in the amount of EUR 200,000, pursuant to R. 158 RoP. The Court found that while the Claimant's U.S. domicile in Florida alone did not justify a security order, the fact that all of the Claimant's assets (essentially a patent portfolio) were pledged to third parties rendered it effectively assetless, warranting the order. The security must be provided within four weeks by deposit into the UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed institution.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Security for costs under R. 158 RoP and Art. 69(4) UPCA
  • Whether U.S. (Florida) domicile alone justifies a security for costs order
  • Whether pledging of all patent portfolio assets and income to third parties renders a claimant effectively assetless
  • Balancing claimant's right to effective remedy (Art. 47 Charter) against defendants' interest in cost protection
  • Determination of case value for security amount calculation
• 2026-06-08
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Hamburg Local Division granted in part the preliminary objection by Defendant 1 (Infoblox Inc., a US company), dismissing the claims against it as inadmissible for lack of international jurisdiction insofar as they relate to the UK national part of EP2005696, because the claimant failed to allege facts showing Infoblox Inc. jointly infringed the UK part together with the anchor defendants (Infoblox Germany GmbH and Nomios Germany GmbH). The remaining parts of the preliminary objection were dismissed, and the costs of the preliminary objection were treated as costs of the main proceedings.

  Show the legal issues (6)

  • International jurisdiction over non-EU defendant (Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 71b(2) Brussels Ia Regulation)
  • Anchor defendant doctrine under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation for UPC proceedings involving non-UPCA countries
  • Jurisdiction over UK national part of a European Patent (non-UPCA, non-EU territory)
  • Requirement to plead joint infringing acts in the target country for Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia jurisdiction
  • Distinction between Art. 4 (domicile) and Art. 8(1) (close connection) jurisdiction under Brussels Ia
  • Preliminary objection procedure (R. 19 RoP)