UPC CoA 548/2024

At the UPC: Aarke AB (6 cases)·SodaStream Industries Ltd. (7 cases)

• 2024-11-29
  Appeal RoP220.2Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal upheld the Düsseldorf Local Division's order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. (claimant/respondent) to provide security for costs in patent infringement proceedings (EP 1 793 917) against Aarke AB. The CoA affirmed the legal standard for security for costs: only the claimant's own financial position is relevant (not that of its group); a claimant's willingness to pay costs and the likely outcome of the case are irrelevant; enforcement being unduly burdensome suffices (need not be proven impossible). The appeal by Aarke was partly upheld in that the CFI applied criteria not in conformity with this standard, but the outcome (ordering SodaStream to provide security) was correct since SodaStream has sufficient financial means.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Security for costs under Rule 158 RoP
  • Criteria for ordering security: claimant's own financial position vs group
  • Enforcement burden as basis for security
  • Enforceability of UPC cost orders in Israel