Recent cases > Security for costs
Showing
Claimant ordered to provide security for costs, denied legal aid
UPC_CFI_224/2024 & UPC_CFI_786/2024 Decision of 27 January 2025 (Order no. ORD_4250/2025, Order no. ORD_4288/2025) The UPC ruled that the Claimant in an infringement proceeding must provide security for costs of the Defendant. The Court further...
Security for the Claimant in Revocation Action
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH vs BALLINNO B.V. (UPC_CFI_230/2024, Revocation Action No. ACT_27358/2024) Order of the CFI of the UPC Paris Central Division dated 14 October 2024 (ORD_47273/2024)[1] The Claimant, Kinexon, successfully requested sec...
Security for Costs
Ballinno B.V. v Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH (UPC_CFI_151/2024) Order of 14 May 2024 (ORD_23557/2024)[1] Ballinno B.V. commenced an application for provisional measur...
Looking out for the little guy: the UPC’s approach on ordering security for costs on SMEs
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. & Plant-e B.V v. Arkyne Technologies S.L. (UPC_CFI_239/2023) Order delivered on 13 February 2024 (ORD_586897/2023) Background The proceedings in this case are an infringement action between Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and it...
Lessons from Harvard: UK-based Nanostring ordered to pay EUR 300,000 as security for legal costs in revocation action
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_CFI_252/2023) Decision delivered on 30 October 2023 (Order no. ORD_574057/2023) Introduction The Central Division (Munich Section) has ordered UK-based NanoStr...
CFI clarifies scope for preliminary objections
Order ORD_576853/2023 [1] dated 29 Sept 2023 by Local Chamber Munich (Presiding Judge and Rapporteur Mr. Zigann) in the case Edwards Lifesciences Corp. vs. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Introduction Edwards (in the following “C...