Biopsafe v Kaltek (CFI, 30 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 30 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_2216/2025 and UPC_CFI_1829/2026), the Milan Local Division dismisses the application for security for costs filed by Kaltek s.r.l. against Biopsafe ApS, claimant in an infringement action on three European patents (EP 2 720 617, EP 3 061 401 and EP 3 653 132), and grants leave to appeal. The order confirms that a low share capital and microenterprise status do not by themselves show a risk that costs will be unrecoverable: the court looks at the claimant’s actual financial position.

Question

Does the financial position of a claimant with a modest share capital give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable, justifying security under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP?

Decision

No. The defendant must substantiate its request. If it puts forward credible reasons, the claimant must challenge them in a substantiated way, and only the claimant’s own financial position is relevant absent guarantees or special circumstances. A share capital of about EUR 10,700 and microenterprise status are not in themselves meaningful indicators. The transfer of shares to Medcap at a stated price of DKK 115 million shows that the market values the company far above its share capital. The 2025 dividend exceeding that year’s profit does not reveal predatory intent given the planned sale. The accounts show gross profit roughly doubling between 2023 and 2025 and no particularly significant debts. The application is dismissed, the costs of the application will follow those of the main proceedings and leave to appeal is granted (Rule 220.2 RoP). The reasons are not numbered.

Key points for practice

• Share capital is only one indicator: the market value shown by a share transfer and the trend in the accounts may rule out a risk of non-recovery.
• Practical point: a party seeking security must go beyond formal indicators and document a concrete financial weakness of the claimant.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 69(4) and 73(2)(b)(ii)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 220.2 and 224.1(b)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_218/2024), Aarke v SodaStream Industries, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_431/2025), Court of Appeal, 12 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_596/2024), Syntorr LP v Arthrex, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026

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.