SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex (CFI, 2 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 2 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_245/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division dismissed the application by SWARCO FUTURIT, claimant in the action against Yunex for infringement of EP 2 643 717, for Shenzhen Dianming, intervening in support of the defendant, to provide security for costs of EUR 169,000.

Question

May the claimant in an infringement action obtain security for costs from an intervener admitted in support of the defendant and treated as a party?

Decision

The intervener, admitted by order of 3 June 2025, is treated as a party (Rule 315.4 RoP) and may therefore be liable for costs if unsuccessful. Whether security should be ordered is however a separate question: following the Court of Appeal in AorticLab v Emboline, the judge-rapporteur declined to order security in favour of the claimant. The application was dismissed, subject to panel review (Rule 333 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP is available only to a defendant, the claimant cannot obtain it from the defendant or from an intervener on its side, even one treated as a party.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 102.2, 158, 315.4 and 333

Case law cited

AorticLab v Emboline, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_393/2025)

Related decisions

• SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex, 28 September 2026, procedural order in the same action.

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.