JingAo Solar v Chint New Energy Technology (CFI, 9 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

On a request for panel review (Rule 333), the Hamburg Local Division upheld the judge rapporteur’s refusal of the application for security for costs brought by Chint New Energy Technology and the Astronergy companies against JingAo Solar, the Chinese claimant in the infringement action on EP 4 092 759 (UPC_CFI_429/2024). The panel declined to follow the Munich Local Division, which had ordered security in a parallel case between the same parties, and granted leave to appeal. For practitioners, the order shows that a claimant’s seat in China is not, before some divisions, enough on its own to obtain security.

Question

Does the lack of experience with enforcing UPC costs decisions in China justify, by itself, ordering a Chinese claimant to provide security under Rule 158?

Decision

No. Applying the Court of Appeal’s test (a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable, or only in an unduly burdensome way, with the initial burden on the applicant), the panel found no facts showing that a costs decision could not be enforced in China. The absence of experience was not enough without concrete evidence of a future difficulty. Leave to appeal was granted because the scope of Rule 158 has not been settled uniformly.

Key points for practice

• An application for security must rest on concrete evidence about recovery. A general reference to the claimant’s seat in China does not suffice.
• Practical point: a division is not bound by another division’s order between the same parties, and the leave to appeal opens the way for the Court of Appeal to clarify the point.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4) and Art. 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 220.2 and 333

Case law cited

AUDI AG v Network System, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Aarke v SodaStream Industries, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025 (parallel case, relied on by the defendants)

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.