Overview · Filed: Apr 30, 2025
UPC_CoA_393/2025
EMBOLIC PROTECTION DEVICE
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Court of Justice EU · 3
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 7(2) Directive 2004/48/EC | Enforcement Directive security is for defendant protection, not claimant's tool | Distinguished | The Enforcement Directive has two provisions dealing with security. Articles 7(2) and 9(6) provide for a duty to provide a security, but there it is an obligation for the claimant to provide security in relation to damages that may be incurred by ... |
| Art. 14 Directive 2004/48/EC | costs borne by unsuccessful party – no right to security for costs | Distinguished | Art. 14 of the Enforcement Directive cannot provide a legal basis either. It merely provides that the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the unsuccessf... |
| C-44/21 | Enforcement Directive security provisions are counterweight protecting defendants | Binding | see CJEU 22 April 2022, C-44/21 (Phoenix v Harting) para 44, 46 and especially par. 48: Those legal instruments constitute guarantees which the legislature deemed necessary as a counterweight to the prompt and effective provisional measures for wh... |
courtName.other · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 69(4) | security for costs – no basis for claimant to demand from defendant | Binding | Art. 69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for granting a security for costs at the request of the claimant in an infringement action. |
| Article 32(1)(d) | revocation action jurisdiction | Background | The same applies to a claimant in a revocation action pursuant to Art. 32(1)(d) UPCA). |
Rules of Procedure · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 158 | security for costs | Binding | concerning security for costs (R. 158 RoP) |
UPC (CFI) · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_628/2024 | impugned order on security for costs | Background | ORD_9097/2025 (App_8962/2025, UPC_CFI_628/2024) in the main proceedings concerning infringement action, ACT_58638/2024, UPC_CFI_628/2024, issued by the Munich Local Division on 16 April 2025. |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_681/2024 Munich LD | Dec 19, 2025 | costs — defendant forced to file counterclaim in order to defend by raising invalidity arguments | Binding | it must be taken into account that a defendant is forced to file a counterclaim in order to defend itself by raising invalidity arguments (UPC_CoA_393/2025, decision of 20 June 2025) |
| UPC_CFI_628/2024 Munich LD | Jan 13, 2026 | costs — defendant forced to file counterclaim to defend via invalidity arguments | Binding | it must be taken into account that a defendant is forced to file a counterclaim in order to defend itself by raising invalidity arguments (UPC_CoA_393/2025, decision of 20 June 2025) |