UPC CFI 894/2026

At the UPC: SYPOX GmbH (4 cases)·Topsoe A/S (4 cases)

• 2026-08-27
  RevocationPublic

  Summary: Procedural order of the Central Division (Munich Section) in a revocation action. The Court held that the claimant Sypox qualifies as an SME under R.370.8 RoP so its reduced court fee is adequate, set the provisional value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected Sypox's request to lower the ceiling for recoverable costs, and REJECTED Topsoe's request for security for costs under R.158 RoP on the ground that Topsoe, bearing the burden of substantiation, had not shown a genuine risk to recoverability. No ruling on validity. [operative 'ORDER', page 8]

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • SME status and reduced court fees under R.370.8 RoP
  • security for costs under R.158 RoP and the burden of substantiation
  • SME status does not by itself dispense with security for costs
  • provisional value of the proceedings
  • ceiling for recoverable costs
• 2026-07-27
  RevocationPublic

  Summary: In the Sypox v Topsoe revocation action the Munich Section of the Central Division took note that Sypox withdrew the unredacted Investment Agreement (D36) and ordered that it be disregarded, with Sypox relying only on the redacted version D36R. Topsoe's requests for access were rejected for want of a sufficient legal interest, Sypox's confidentiality interest outweighing Topsoe's, and the decision on public access was deferred until a member of the public requests it.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • withdrawal of a document from the proceedings and its exclusion under Art. 76(2) UPCA
  • confidentiality of commercial agreements under R. 262.2 and R. 262A RoP
  • sufficient legal interest for access to an unredacted document
  • SME status as relevant to court fees and the cost ceiling