UPC CoA 548/2024
Sep 23, 2024·EP1793917 · A DEVICE FOR CARBONATING A LIQUID WITH PRESSURIZED GAS
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Claimants
- Aarke ABOperating co.
Representatives- Jens Olsson-Gulliksson
- Magnus Dahlman-Gulliksson
- Emelie Rexelius-Gulliksson
Respondents- SodaStream Industries Ltd.Operating co.
Representatives- Alexander Klicznik-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Andreas von Falck-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Diana Rodriguez-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Lea Groblinghoff-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- ChemistryChemical engineering
- Mechanical engineeringHandling
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Nov 29, 2024
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Rian Kalden | Locked |
| Judge Patricia Rombach | Locked |
| Judge Ingeborg Simonsson | Locked |
At the UPC: Aarke AB (6 cases)·SodaStream Industries Ltd. (7 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CoA 844/2024·UPC CFI 759/2024·UPC CFI 373/2023·UPC APP 47922/2024·UPC APP 55249/2024
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2024
- 2024-11-29Appeal 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
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-01-24 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-12-02 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2024-12-02 | Not public |
| Final order on security for costs | 2024-12-02 | Public |
| Hearing Reference | 2024-11-29 | Not public |
| Hearing Reference | 2024-11-29 | Not public |
| Final order on security for costs | 2024-11-29 | Public |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2024-10-29 | Not public |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2024-10-29 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2024-10-28 | Public |
| Interim-Conference-Decision | 2024-10-28 | Not public |
| Comment on PO re hearing by VC | 2024-10-22 | Not public |
| Statement to a hearing by video conference | 2024-10-22 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-10-18 | Not public |
| statement of response | 2024-10-18 | Not public |
| Summons to oral hearing | 2024-10-17 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-10-04 | Not public |
| Panel-Appointment | 2024-10-04 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2024-10-04 | Not public |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2024-10-04 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-09-23 | Not public |
| 2024-09-23 Appeal Security for costs signed | 2024-09-23 | Not public |