Opens in a new tab

Syntorr v Arthrex (CFI, ORD_20895/2025, 11 August 2025)

Date11 August 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_20446/2025 · ORD_20895/2025
PartiesArthrex 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 835 470Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.