N.J DIFFUSION v GISELA MAYER (CFI, 26 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_363/2024, ACT_39091/2024, ORD_6886/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (Judge Lignières) dismissed the application for security for costs filed by GISELA MAYER, defendant to the infringement action brought by N.J DIFFUSION on EP 2 404 516, together with its alternative request for leave to appeal. The order shows that signs of financial weakness can be answered by recent accounting evidence, and confirms that an order on security is subject to panel review.

Question

Do the signs of financial weakness relied on against the claimant justify security for costs (Rule 158), and can the judge-rapporteur grant leave to appeal against his or her own order?

Decision

No on both counts. The test is whether there is a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable, the likely outcome of the case being irrelevant. The matters raised (accounts not filed, auditor not reappointed, a 24% fall in turnover) are relevant, but N.J DIFFUSION produced a favourable accountant’s certificate and its 2023 accounts, given costs estimated by the applicant at EUR 56,000 at most, for a value of the action of EUR 300,000, no risk of non-payment was shown. An order on security being a case management order, it is subject to review by the panel (Rule 333), and the judge-rapporteur cannot open an appeal.

Key points for practice

• A defendant seeking security should expect the claimant to produce recent accounts: mere indications will not prevail over a favourable accountant’s certificate.
• Practical point: the route against a judge-rapporteur’s order on security for costs is a request for panel review, not leave to appeal.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158 and 333

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024), Aarke v SodaStream Industries, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_548/2024), Court of Appeal, 14 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_651/2024).

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.