AYLO PREMIUM v DISH Technologies (CFI, 17 February 2025)

Date	17 February 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_56087/2024 · ORD_59528/2024
Parties	AYLO PREMIUM LTD

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 an order of 18 February 2025 (ORD_59528/2024, UPC_CFI_198/2024), the Paris Central Division (panel presided over by François Thomas, Maximilian Haedicke as judge rapporteur) dismissed the application by AYLO PREMIUM LTD, claimant in the revocation action against EP 3 822 805 B1, for the patentee DISH Technologies L.L.C. to provide security of at least EUR 400,000 for its costs. The order accepts that a claimant may seek security but requires demanding proof of the defendant’s inability to pay.

Question

May the claimant in a revocation action obtain security for costs from the defendant patentee under Rule 158.1, and on what conditions?

Decision

Since Rule 158.1 refers to ‘a party’, a claimant may also apply for security (paragraph 14). The burden of proof lies on it, and strict requirements apply since it chose to litigate (paragraphs 15, 17 and 18). AYLO failed to show that DISH would be unable to pay costs: the going concern qualification had been lifted in the latest SEC report, EchoStar’s debt had decreased and the group had raised more than USD 8 billion in new funding (paragraphs 19 and 20). Statements by an opposing party in US proceedings and analysts’ articles carried little weight (paragraphs 21 to 23). EchoStar’s declaration of 17 January 2025, undertaking to reimburse AYLO’s costs up to EUR 400,000, was taken into account as evidence without being treated as security (paragraphs 24, 26 and 27). The request concerning the application to amend was left to a separate order.

Key points for practice

A revocation claimant may seek security for costs from the patentee, but must show convincingly that there is a risk of non-payment.
A parent company’s letter of undertaking may help defeat the application, even if its legal nature is left open.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 69(4)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 158.1, 158.5, 331.2 and 355
Case law cited: 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 April 2024, Mannheim Local Division, 4 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_471/2023), relied on by the claimant

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

claimantAYLO PREMIUM LTD12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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): La division centrale rejette la demande de garantie pour frais d'AYLO contre DISH : un demandeur peut solliciter une garantie, mais AYLO ne prouve pas l'incapacité de DISH à payer les frais.
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 3 822 805 B1 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, ORD_598272/2023, 30 April 2024) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 822 805 B1`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): AYLO PREMIUM v DISH Technologies (CFI, 28 May 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.