UPC CoA 8/2025

At the UPC: Bhagat Textile Engineers (6 cases)·Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (13 cases)

• 2026-02-03
  Public

  Summary: Following the conclusion of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Bhagat Textile Engineers on payment of procedural costs (arising from the infringement judgment UPC_CFI_241/2023 and the appeal UPC_CoA_8/2025 decision of 9 December 2025), the Court of Appeal ordered the release and transfer to Oerlikon of the EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat pursuant to the security for costs order of 30 October 2025. Bhagat consented to the transfer.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Release of security for costs (R. 352.2 RoP)
  • Settlement agreement following conclusion of proceedings
  • Transfer of security deposit to successful party
• 2025-12-09
  Appeal RoP220.1Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal decision on damages and costs in appeal by Bhagat Textile Engineers against the first-instance infringement decision (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed that Bhagat was at least negligent (Art. 68(1) UPCA) having exhibited the infringing product at ITMA 2023 without checking the patent landscape. Oerlikon's claims for moral/reputational prejudice were rejected as insufficiently substantiated. The CoA upheld the CFI's cost allocation (Bhagat to bear 80% of first-instance costs). The CoA determined the damages quantum.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Damages assessment (Art. 68 UPCA)
  • Knowledge/negligence of infringer (Art. 68(1) UPCA)
  • Moral/reputational prejudice
  • Cost allocation on appeal
• 2025-10-30
  Application For CostsPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano, Checcacci, Wilhelm) ordered Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 (50% of the applicable ceiling) within 10 days in the appeal against the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment concerning EP 2 145 848. The court rejected Oerlikon's request for security regarding first-instance costs already awarded (as those are a matter of enforcement). Security was justified by Bhagat's financial difficulties, the non-enforceability of UPC orders in India, and Bhagat's explicit acknowledgment that it cannot pay the first-instance costs.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Security for costs in appeal proceedings (R. 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA)
  • Enforceability of UPC cost orders in third countries (India)
  • Scope of security for costs - appeal proceedings only, not first-instance costs
  • Financial difficulties of appellant as factor
  • Timing of security for costs application