ARM v ICPillar (CoA, 7 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 7 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024, APL_33746/2024, App_40131/2024), the second panel of the Court of Appeal (R. Kalden, presiding and judge-rapporteur, I. Simonsson, P. Rombach), hearing ICPillar LLC’s appeal against the Paris Local Division’s order of 21 May 2024 requiring it to provide security for the costs of ARM Limited and other group companies (EP 3000239), ruled on ARM’s procedural application under Rule 9 RoP. The interest lies in the date of service of the grounds of appeal and in access to a confidential exhibit.

Question

Is the Statement of appeal served where the respondent received the case management system notification late, and can the time for a response run while the unredacted version of an exhibit remains inaccessible to it?

Decision

The main request is rejected: the Statement of appeal is deemed served on 21 June 2024, when ARM received the access code and accessed the file (paragraph 10). Exhibit 4, a copy of the insurance policy on which ICPillar relies to challenge the security, had been uploaded outside the Rule 262A workflow and was not visible to ARM (paragraphs 11 to 13). Due process requires that at least ARM’s representative has access to it (paragraph 13). The alternative request is granted: the time for the Statement of response ends on the 15th day after that version is made available to ARM’s representative (paragraph 14 and order).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an exhibit for which confidentiality is sought should be filed in the Rule 262A workflow, otherwise the opponent’s time limit may be postponed until its representative has access.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 158.1 and 262A

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.