Chint New Energy Technology v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 9 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_431/2025, APL_23095/2025), the Court of Appeal (Judges Grabinski, Blok and Gougé) reversed the Hamburg Local Division’s refusal and ordered JingAo Solar, the Chinese claimant in the infringement action under EP 4 092 759, to provide the Chint and Astronergy companies with security for costs of EUR 200,000. The order explains how to assess the risk of enforcing a costs order in a third country with no experience of enforcing UPC decisions.

Question

Does the absence of any precedent for enforcing a UPC decision in China rule out that enforcing a costs order there may be impossible or unduly burdensome within Art. 69(4) UPCA?

Decision

No. JingAo’s statement of response, filed one day late, is disregarded (Rule 9.2), although the Court still examines the first instance file (paragraphs 5 to 8). The party seeking security must substantiate the risk, including foreign law (paragraphs 10 and 11). JingAo’s financial standing was not in doubt (paragraph 12), but the lack of experience is not decisive: the court must assess the likelihood of enforcement on other facts (paragraph 13). A seat outside the EU and EEA is relevant (paragraph 14). In China recognition depends on treaties or reciprocity, and the serious, unrebutted difficulties of service under the Hague Service Convention point to likely enforcement difficulties (paragraphs 15 and 16). JingAo’s arguments are rejected (paragraphs 17 to 20). Security is set at the ceiling on recoverable costs for a value of EUR 2,000,000 (paragraph 21), to be provided within one month, failing which a default decision may follow (Rule 355).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party seeking security against a claimant based outside the EU should document the recognition rules of the state concerned and the concrete difficulties of service or enforcement.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 158, 222.1, 235 and 355

Case law cited

Court of Appeal: Audi v NST, 17 September 2024, Aarke v Sodastream, 29 November 2024 and order of 5 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_636/2024), Mannheim Local Division, Panasonic v Xiaomi, 31 July 2024, Munich Local Division, Air up group v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology, 21 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_508/2023 and UPC_CFI_509/2023)

Related decisions

• Astronergy Europe, 9 May 2025, Hamburg Local Division panel order refusing security, under appeal.
• Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar, 9 July 2025, order of the same day holding the appeal inadmissible in the parallel Munich proceedings.

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.