UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 996/2025

Oct 1, 2025·EP3003087 +1 more: INTEGRATED CLOSURE DEVICE COMPONENTS AND METHODS

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH); Jörn Peters (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH); Julien Thon (CASALONGA SAS); Floriane Codevelle (CASALONGA SAS)
Respondents
Reps: Richard Schlötter (Heumann Intellectual Property Law); Felix Daul (HGF Munich); Francois Herpe (Cornet Vincent Ségurel); Martin Köhler (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Mirko Weinert (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Joscha Torweihe (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Simon Heilmann (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Andreas Pfund (Dreiss Patentanwälte); Johannes Maurer (Dreiss Patentanwälte)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
Consumer Goods · Footwear Closures · Packaging & Conveying
Language
English
First decided
Jun 1, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-06-01
    Infringement Action

    The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed Defendant 2 (Shinkyung Inc.)'s application for security for costs under R.158 RoP. The court found that Shinkyung's arguments, which focused on the financial situation of BOA's holding company CODI rather than BOA itself, were insufficient to establish that BOA lacked the means to meet a future costs order. The security for costs request of EUR 200,000 was therefore denied in its entirety.

    Legal issues:Security for costs under R.158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCAWhether financial condition of a holding company (CODI) is relevant to assessing claimant's (BOA's) financial meansThreshold for establishing insufficient means to meet a costs order
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.issueOrder.order2026-06-01Not public
Order2026-06-01Public
Receipt2026-05-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-04Not public
Statement of reply2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-25Not public
Order2026-03-25Public
Receipt2026-03-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-19Not public
Submission Claimant2026-03-19Not public
Receipt2026-03-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-18Not public
Submission Defendant2026-03-18Not public
Receipt2026-03-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-18Not public
Submission Defendant2026-03-18Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-03-10Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-09Not public
Order2026-03-09Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-06Not public
Order2026-03-06Not public
Receipt2026-02-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-27Not public
Counterclaim for revocation2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Statement of defence2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-27Not public
Document Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Counterclaim for revocation2026-02-27Not public
Statement of defence2026-02-27Not public
Statement of defence2026-02-27Not public
Further pleadings2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-25Not public
Document Defendant2026-02-25Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-01-19Not public
Receipt2026-01-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-16Not public
Document2026-01-16Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-15Not public
Order2026-01-15Not public
Receipt2026-01-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-05Not public
Document2026-01-05Not public
Receipt2025-12-30Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-30Not public
Other document Defendant2025-12-30Not public
action.communication.general2025-12-29Not public
Receipt2025-12-19Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-19Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-12-19Not public
Other document Claimant2025-12-19Not public
action.communication.general2025-12-11Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-11Not public
Other document Defendant2025-12-11Not public
Receipt2025-12-11Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-06Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2025-11-06Not public
Other Documents2025-10-08Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-01Not public
Fee2025-10-01Not public
Statement of claim2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Exhibit2025-10-01Not public
Receipt2025-10-01Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Only the financial situation of BOA itself should be considered, not that of its holding company CODI, which is not a party to the proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; UPC CoA Order of 29 November 2024, UPC_CFI_548/2024 (Aarke v. Sodastream) §21

  • BOA demonstrated financial stability by reference to the financial analysis of 17 March 2026 showing CODI earned USD 64.3 million in Q4 2025

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R.158 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • BOA's holding company CODI experienced a -62% stock price fall in 2025 and negative growth estimates for 2026, indicating BOA would be unable to meet a costs order

    RespondentLegal basis: R.158.1 RoP; Art. 82(2) UPCA