Opens in a new tab

N.J DIFFUSION v GISELA MAYER (CFI, 19 June 2025)

Date19 June 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_28441/2025 · ORD_29278/2025
PartiesGISELA MAYER GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 a procedural order of 19 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_363/2024, EP 2 404 516), the Paris Local Division (Judges Lignières, presiding and judge-rapporteur, Gillet and Schilling), on referral from the judge-rapporteur, held inadmissible GISELA MAYER’s application for security for costs of EUR 50,000 against N.J DIFFUSION, lodged after the latter had entered French judicial reorganisation proceedings (redressement judiciaire). It admitted the voluntary intervention of the insolvency officeholders, recorded that the action on the merits continues and refused to postpone the oral hearing of 20 June 2025. The order addresses the interplay between security under Rule 158 and French insolvency law.

Question

Can the defendant to an infringement action obtain security for costs against a claimant placed in judicial reorganisation during the proceedings?

Decision

The Division found that the action could continue, its conditions being met: the insolvency officeholders had been joined and GISELA MAYER had lodged its claims, the verification of which is for the supervising judge (juge-commissaire). The alleged fraud by the debtor was not established: the accountant’s certificate produced in support of the first, rejected, security application was dated 4 April 2025, before the date of cessation of payments (14 May 2025), and only the insolvency court may rule on fraudulent acts. Security does not condition the continuation of the action, and granting it to one creditor would breach the principle of equal treatment of creditors: the application was inadmissible. Leave to appeal was refused.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 73
Rules of Procedure
Rules 158, 220.2, 311, 313, 331.2 and 355.1
Other provisions
French Commercial Code, Arts L. 622-21, L. 622-22, L. 625-3 and R. 622-20

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande de garantie pour frais formée après l'ouverture du redressement judiciaire du demandeur est irrecevable, l'octroi d'une garantie à un créancier heurtant l'égalité des créanciers. L'instance au fond se poursuit et l'audience est maintenue.
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

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
EP 2 404 516Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): N.J DIFFUSION v GISELA MAYER (CFI, 1 August 2025) · N.J DIFFUSION v GISELA MAYER (CFI, 26 February 2025) · N.J. DIFFUSION v GISELA MAYER (CFI, 20 January 2025)
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.