Syntorr v Arthrex (CFI, ORD_25293/2025, 11 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 11 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_358/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division ordered Syntorr, claimant in an infringement action against three Arthrex companies (EP 2 670 898), to provide security for the defendants’ costs of EUR 2,000,000 in total by 30 September 2025, by bank guarantee or deposit into the Court’s account. A litigation insurance policy, even with an anti-avoidance endorsement giving the defendants an irrevocable direct claim against the insurer, was not considered sufficient. The order is of interest to insurance-funded claimants.

Question

Can litigation insurance with a direct claim against the insurer stand in for security for costs, and in what amount should security be set?

Decision

The judge held that the claimant must provide adequate security and that, under Rule 158.1, its insurance policy was not adequate security. Security exceeding the regular ceiling for recoverable costs (EUR 2,000,000 in this case) was not justified, so the request for EUR 3,300,000 was reduced to that ceiling. The claimant was warned that a default decision may be given under Rule 355 if security is not provided in time. The reasoning is very brief.

Key points for practice

• The ceiling on recoverable costs serves as the upper limit for the amount of security. A request above it needs specific justification.
• In this order, insurance with a direct claim against the insurer was not accepted as a form of security. Only a bank guarantee or a deposit were.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1, 333.1 and 355

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.