BF exaQC v NVIDIA (CFI, 28 October 2025)
| Date | 28 October 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_729/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_729/2025 |
| Parties | BF exaQC AG v. NVIDIA Corporation a. o. |
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 order of 28 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_729/2025, EP 3 614 263), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division ordered ParTec, the second claimant and patent proprietor, to provide security for costs of EUR 80,500 in favour of NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH in the infringement action it brings together with BF exaQC. The application was refused as against BF exaQC. The order shows how undisputed press reports of liquidity problems can justify security, and how the amount is allocated between co-claimants.
Question
Does a co-claimant’s financial position justify security for costs, against which claimant, and in what amount?
Decision
The test is whether there is a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable. Insolvency is not required (paragraphs 17, 18, 29 and 30). Press reports of ParTec’s liquidity problems went unchallenged and the material produced did not show financial soundness (paragraphs 21 to 30). Since liability for costs is pro rata rather than joint and several, BF exaQC’s finances do not cover ParTec’s share (paragraph 31), absent any information on BF exaQC, no security was ordered against it (paragraph 32). The applicable ceiling of EUR 200,000 takes account of a future revocation counterclaim not yet filed (paragraphs 34 to 37), of estimated representation costs of EUR 150,000, EUR 75,000 is attributed to ParTec, plus half the court fees for the future counterclaim (paragraphs 38 and 39). Security is to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee within six weeks, failing which a default decision may be given (Rule 355 RoP).
Key points for practice
- Security for costs is assessed claimant by claimant: one co-claimant’s solvency does not shield the other.
- The amount may anticipate a foreseeable revocation counterclaim even before it is filed.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 23, 25.1, 158.1, 158.3, 158.4 and 355
- Case law cited
- Ballinno v Kinexon, 26 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_328/2024), NST v Audi, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024), SodaStream v Aarke, 29 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_548/2024), Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments, 14 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_651/2024) (Court of Appeal), Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce, 10 October 2024, Ortovox v Mammut, 14 January 2025, Tridonic v Cupower, 7 March 2025 (Düsseldorf Local Division), Headwater v Motorola, Munich Local Division, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_127/2024 and UPC_CFI_149/2024)
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: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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.
Parties
- claimantBF exaQC AG6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNVIDIA Corporation a. oFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- ParTec doit fournir une garantie pour frais de 80 500 euros sous six semaines au vu de ses difficultés de trésorerie non contestées. La demande est rejetée à l'égard de BF exaQC.
- 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 3 614 263mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Tridonic v CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics (CFI, 7 March 2025) cited in this record
- TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments Deutschland (CoA, 14 January 2025) cited in this record
- Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 14 January 2025) cited in this record
- Aarke v SodaStream Industries (CoA, 29 November 2024) cited in this record
- Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce (CFI, 10 October 2024) cited in this record
- Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 17 September 2024) cited in this record
- Ballinno v Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 26 August 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 614 263 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): BF exaQC v Google (CFI, 19 October 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.