UPC CoA 393/2025
Apr 30, 2025·EP2129425 · EMBOLIC PROTECTION DEVICE
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Claim dismissed)ActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Rian Kalden | Locked |
| Judge Patricia Rombach | Locked |
| Judge Ingeborg Simonsson | Locked |
At the UPC: AorticLab srl (6 cases)·Emboline, Inc. (6 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CoA 123/2026·UPC CoA 40/2026·UPC CFI 125/2025·UPC CFI 628/2024·UPC APP 8962/2025
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2025
- 2025-06-20Appeal RoP220.2Public
Summary: The Court of Appeal allowed AorticLab's appeal and set aside the Munich Local Division's order granting Emboline's application for security for costs. The CoA held that Art. 69(4) UPCA provides no legal basis for a security for costs at the request of the claimant in an infringement action in response to a defendant's counterclaim for revocation. Allowing such security would unreasonably restrict the defendant's right to raise an invalidity defence by means of a mandatory counterclaim.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Security for costs (R. 158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCA)
- No security for costs against defendant's counterclaim for revocation
- Defendant's right to raise invalidity defence
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated | 2025-06-20 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2025-06-20 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-06-20 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-06-20 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2025-06-20 | Public |
| Hearing Reference | 2025-06-20 | Not public |
| Hearing Reference | 2025-06-20 | Not public |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2025-06-20 | Not public |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2025-06-20 | Not public |
| Response to Court order issued on 21 May 2025 | 2025-05-27 | Not public |