ICPillar v Arm (CFI, 21 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_495/2023), the Paris Local Division ordered ICPillar, proprietor of EP 3 000 239 and claimant in an infringement action against several Arm group companies, to provide security for costs of EUR 400,000 within six weeks. Domicile in the United States did not in itself justify security. It was the lack of any information on the financial position of the claimant, a recent company living on licence income, that did. A broker’s statement about insurance covering the opponent’s costs did not remove the need for security.

Question

Can a foreign company whose financial position is unknown avoid security for costs by relying on insurance covering the opponent’s costs?

Decision

The division adopted the criteria set out by the Munich Central Division: the claimant’s financial position and difficulties of enforcement, balanced against the right to an effective remedy. Enforcement in the United States is not in itself unduly burdensome, since the company’s address is known and foreign judgments can in principle be recognised there. However, ICPillar, founded in 2021 by the inventor and earning income only from licences, gave no indication of its assets. The broker’s statement was insufficient: the insurance protects the insured, not the defendants, and its terms were not disclosed. With the value in dispute contested (EUR 18 or 15 million, giving a costs ceiling of EUR 1,200,000 or 800,000), security was set at EUR 400,000, by deposit or by guarantee from a bank licensed in the European Union. A guarantee from a US bank was refused.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a claimant wishing to avoid security for costs should document its financial position, an insurance policy only helps if its terms are disclosed and it benefits the defendant.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 69(4) and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1, 158.2 and 220.2

Case law cited

NanoString, Munich Central Division, 30 October 2023, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 29 September 2023.

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.