Opens in a new tab

BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, UPC_CFI_2228/2025, 27 May 2026)

Date27 May 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_2228/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-2228/2025
PartiesBMS Innovations, LLC v. BYD Company Ltd et al.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 order of 27 May 2026 in UPC_CFI_2228/2025 and UPC_CFI_1546/2026, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division ordered BMS Innovations, which is suing several BYD group companies for infringement of EP3393001, to provide security of EUR 350,000 for the costs of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. As the principle of security was not disputed, the order deals only with amount, form and time limit, with brief reasons.

Question

How should security under Rule 158 RoP be set where the parties agree on the value of the infringement action but differ on the value of the counterclaim, which has not yet been determined?

Decision

BYD sought EUR 400,000 within three weeks. BMS Innovations did not oppose security but proposed EUR 300,000 within seven weeks (paragraph 6). The judge held that security is set at 50% of the value of the proceedings. Since the parties’ difference lay in their assessment of the counterclaim and the correct value could not yet be determined, the amount was fixed at EUR 350,000 (paragraph 7). As BMS Innovations could have prepared from its response of 28 April 2026, four weeks was considered reasonable (paragraph 8). Security is to be provided by deposit into the UPC account for security or by a guarantee from a bank licensed in the European Union. Failing that, a decision by default may be given (Rule 355 RoP).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 158 and 355

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

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
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

  • UPC_CFI_2228/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 19 May 2026 BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, 19 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_2228/2025

    La division locale de La Haye se déclare incompétente à l'égard de BYD (U.K.), à qui ne sont reprochés que des actes au Royaume-Uni, et renvoie au fond l'objection relative aux actes britanniques des sociétés mères chinoises.

  2. 27 May 2026 BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, UPC_CFI_2228/2025, 27 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_2228/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
BMS Innovations doit constituer une garantie de 350 000 euros, par dépôt ou garantie bancaire, dans un délai de quatre semaines, sous peine de décision par défaut.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP3393001Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, 19 May 2026)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.