BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, UPC_CFI_2228/2025, 27 May 2026)
| Date | 27 May 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | The Hague (NL) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_2228/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-2228/2025 |
| Parties | BMS Innovations, LLC v. BYD Company Ltd et al. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 19 May 2026 : BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, 19 May 2026) UPC-CFI-0002228/2025
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 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
- Where the value of the counterclaim is still in dispute, the court may settle on an amount between the parties’ proposals.
- Practical point: a party that does not dispute security should prepare from the date of its response, since the time limit is assessed from then.
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
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
- claimantBMS Innovations, LLC5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantBYD Company Ltd et al2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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.
- 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
EP3393001mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, 19 May 2026) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP3393001 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, 19 May 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.