UPC CoA 301/2024

At the UPC: ICPillar LLC (7 cases)·Simulity Labs Limited (7 cases)

• 2024-09-16
  Appeal RoP220.2Public

  Summary: 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).

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Security for costs under R. 158 RoP
  • Adequacy of bank guarantee from non-EU bank
  • Discretion to disregard late-filed evidence (R. 222.2 RoP)
  • Duty to provide available evidence (R. 172.1 RoP)
• 2024-07-26
  Application RoP262APublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
  • Confidentiality of exhibit in appeal (R. 262A RoP)
  • Equality of arms in appeal proceedings
• 2024-07-07
  Public

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
  • CMS notification technical issues
  • Confidentiality protection application (R. 262A RoP)
  • Appeal procedure steps
• 2024-06-19
  Public

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Suspensive effect of appeal (Art. 74(1) UPCA / R. 223 RoP)
  • Conflict between Art. 74 UPCA and R. 223.5 RoP – UPCA prevails (R. 1.1 RoP)
  • Exceptional circumstances for granting suspensive effect to procedural appeal orders
  • Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
  • Expedition of appeal (R. 9.3(b) RoP / R. 225(e) RoP)