Nixu FL IP Protection v Infoblox (CFI, 10 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 10 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_360/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division orders Nixu FL IP Protection to provide security of EUR 200,000 for the costs of Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH and Nomios Germany GmbH, sued for infringement of EP 2 005 696, whereas the defendants had sought EUR 1 million. The claimant’s US domicile does not justify security. Its financial position does.

Question

Must a recently incorporated US company whose only asset is a pledged patent portfolio provide security for costs, and in what amount?

Decision

The judge-rapporteur may decide alone, since Rule 158 RoP does not reserve the decision to the panel (paragraph 26). A US domicile is not enough: cost decisions can be recognised and enforced there, and the Florida rules relied on do not cast doubt on enforcement (paragraphs 30 and 31). The claimant, however, is newly established, appears to be a single-purpose entity with no credit history, and holds only a pledged and not fully paid portfolio (paragraphs 32 to 36). Security is set at half of the EUR 400,000 ceiling for recoverable costs, to preserve the right to an effective remedy (paragraphs 37 to 39). It may take the form of a deposit or a bank guarantee, to be provided within four weeks, failing which a default decision may follow (Rule 158.5 RoP).

Key points for practice

• A claimant’s US domicile does not in itself justify security. An insolvency risk shown by concrete facts does.
• Practical point: the amount may be set below the ceiling for recoverable costs, here at 50%, to balance the defendant’s protection against access to the court.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158 and 355

Case law cited

Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments, Court of Appeal, 14 January 2025, Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 28 April 2026, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024), Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 29 September 2023, Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 13 February 2024, Ballinno v Kinexon, Hamburg Local Division, 14 May 2024, Visibly v Easee, Hamburg Local Division, 29 May 2025

Related decisions

• Nixu FL IP Protection v Infoblox, 8 June 2026, order on the preliminary objection to international jurisdiction.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.