BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, UPC_CFI_2070/2025, 27 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 27 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_2070/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division ordered BMS Innovations, claimant in the infringement action on EP 2937706 against six companies of the BYD group, to provide security for costs of EUR 300,000 within one month. The order is of interest for its method: the amount is set at half the ceiling for recoverable costs, based on a provisional value for the counterclaim for revocation.

Question

How should the amount and time limit for security under Rule 158 RoP be set where the principle is not disputed and the value of the counterclaim has not yet been fixed?

Decision

BYD sought EUR 400,000 within three weeks. BMS Innovations, without disputing the facts put forward on its financial position (paragraph 8), offered EUR 300,000 within seven weeks. The judge noted that the court has discretion and that the amount is best assessed once the scope of the proceedings is clear (paragraphs 11 and 12). Since the counterclaim may be valued at the value of the infringement action plus up to 50%, it would be premature to adopt that maximum before the interim conference: the counterclaim was provisionally valued at EUR 4 million, giving EUR 8 million in total (paragraphs 13 to 17). With a recoverable costs ceiling of EUR 600,000 at that value, half of it, EUR 300,000, was considered adequate (paragraph 18). As no reason was given for seven weeks, one month was allowed (paragraph 19), by deposit into the UPC account for security, failing which a decision by default may be given (Rules 158.4 and 355 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Security may be calibrated as a fraction of the recoverable costs ceiling for the provisional value of the dispute.
• Practical point: a party seeking more time to provide security must give reasons, or the court will keep to one month.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 69(4) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1, 158.3, 158.4, 220.2 and 355

Other provisions

Administrative Committee decision on the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs

Case law cited

Audi v Network System Technology, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_221/2024), Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics, Brussels Local Division, 18 March 2026

Related decisions

• BMS Innovations v BYD, 14 April 2026, earlier order on the preliminary objection.

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.