Syntorr v Arthrex (CFI, ORD_20895/2025, 11 August 2025)
| Date | 11 August 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_20446/2025 · ORD_20895/2025 |
| Parties | Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By procedural order of 11 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_114/2025, ACT_7504/2025), Judge Pichlmaier, judge rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, ordered Syntorr, a Cypriot company and claimant in the action for infringement of EP 3 835 470, to provide security for costs of EUR 2,000,000 by 30 September 2025 in favour of Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH and Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA. Syntorr’s litigation insurance, even with an anti-avoidance endorsement giving the defendants a direct claim against the insurer, was not considered sufficient. The amount is capped at the regular ceiling for recoverable costs.
Question
Is litigation insurance with a direct claim adequate security under Rule 158.1 RoP, and may security exceed the ceiling for recoverable costs?
Decision
The defendants sought EUR 3,300,000, namely EUR 1,100,000 each, Syntorr opposed any security or alternatively offered one to two million euros in the form of insurance. According to the grounds, the claimant must provide adequate security, its insurance policy is not adequate security under Rule 158.1 RoP, and security exceeding the regular ceiling for recoverable costs, here EUR 2 million, is not justified. Security is to take the form of a guarantee from a bank authorised in an EPC Contracting State or a deposit into the UPC account. Failing that, a default decision may be given (Rule 355 RoP). The order may only be appealed after review by the panel (Rule 333.1 RoP).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a claimant funded by insurance should plan for a bank guarantee or a deposit, as an anti-avoidance endorsement does not replace security, a defendant cannot expect more than the ceiling for recoverable costs.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 158.1, 333.1 and 355
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_430/2025)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantArthrex Inc.4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantArthrex GmbH4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantArthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Syntorr doit constituer avant le 30 septembre 2025 une garantie de 2 000 000 euros par garantie bancaire ou dépôt, son assurance avec avenant anti-évitement n'étant pas une garantie adéquate.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 835 470mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 835 470 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Syntorr LP v Arthrex (CoA, UPC_CoA_889/2025, 18 February 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.