Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar (CoA, 20 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_430/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected Chint New Energy’s application for suspensive effect and expedition of its appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 5 May 2025, which required it to provide security for costs of EUR 200,000 in favour of JingAo Solar by 6 June 2025, in the action for infringement of EP 2 787 541 (solar cell). The order confirms that security for costs must ordinarily be provided while the appeal is pending.

Question

Does an obligation to provide security for costs before the Court of Appeal has ruled justify suspensive effect of the appeal or, failing that, expedition of the appeal proceedings?

Decision

The application was admissible but unfounded (paragraph 9). The appeal would not become devoid of purpose: if the order were set aside, the security could be released, Chint had not shown an undue burden, its bank and internal finance arrangements being insufficient, and a suspension could delay the proceedings before the Local Division (paragraph 11). Criticism of the reasoning was a matter for the appeal itself, there being no clearly untenable error (paragraph 12). Expedition under Rule 9.3(b) requires a balancing of both parties’ interests, which did not justify shortening time limits at JingAo’s expense (paragraphs 13 and 14). The Court ruled without hearing JingAo, since the outcome favoured it (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

• An order for security for costs is ordinarily enforceable pending appeal: the possibility of releasing the security if the order is set aside means the appeal does not become devoid of purpose (paragraph 11).
• Practical point: a party ordered to provide security should plan its funding in advance, as bank or internal constraints will not secure a stay.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(b) and 223.3

Case law cited

ICPillar v ARM, 19 June 2024, Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, 29 October 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.