Main Details: Registry number APL_20694/2025 Date 20. Juni 2025 Parties AorticLab srl v. Emboline, Inc. Order/Decision reference ORD_29391/2025 Type of action Appeal RoP220.2 Language of Proceedings English Court - Division Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English Headnotes: 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. The same applies to a claimant in a revocation action pursuant to Art. 32(1)(d) UPCA). The ratio behind Art. 69(4) UPCA is the protection of a defendant against an insolvent claimant, who initiates an action, without having sufficient means to compensate the defendant for the legal costs incurred by the proceedings he was involved in at the initiative of the claimant. That same rationale does not apply to a counterclaim for revocation, since such an action is still the direct consequence of the infringement action initiated by the claimant. Under the system of the UPCA and the RoP, a defendant is not allowed to bring forward an invalidity defence without at the same time lodging a separate counterclaim for revocation. Allowing a security for costs order at the request of the claimant in an infringement action in response to a counterclaim thus unreasonably limits the defendant in its defence. English Schlüsselwörter: Security for costs at the request of the claimant in the infringement action French Headnotes: - German Headnotes: - French Schlüsselwörter: - German Schlüsselwörter: - Back to Decisions and Orders
Main Details: Registry number APL_20694/2025 Date 20. Juni 2025 Parties AorticLab srl v. Emboline, Inc. Order/Decision reference ORD_29391/2025 Type of action Appeal RoP220.2 Language of Proceedings English Court - Division Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English Headnotes: 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. The same applies to a claimant in a revocation action pursuant to Art. 32(1)(d) UPCA). The ratio behind Art. 69(4) UPCA is the protection of a defendant against an insolvent claimant, who initiates an action, without having sufficient means to compensate the defendant for the legal costs incurred by the proceedings he was involved in at the initiative of the claimant. That same rationale does not apply to a counterclaim for revocation, since such an action is still the direct consequence of the infringement action initiated by the claimant. Under the system of the UPCA and the RoP, a defendant is not allowed to bring forward an invalidity defence without at the same time lodging a separate counterclaim for revocation. Allowing a security for costs order at the request of the claimant in an infringement action in response to a counterclaim thus unreasonably limits the defendant in its defence. English Schlüsselwörter: Security for costs at the request of the claimant in the infringement action French Headnotes: - German Headnotes: - French Schlüsselwörter: - German Schlüsselwörter: - Back to Decisions and Orders