N.J DIFFUSION v GISELA MAYER (CFI, 19 June 2025)
| Date | 19 June 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_28441/2025 · ORD_29278/2025 |
| Parties | GISELA 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.
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
- Once the claimant is in judicial reorganisation, the defendant must protect its position by lodging its claim in the insolvency proceedings. Security for costs is no longer available to it.
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
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
Parties
- claimantGISELA MAYER GmbH3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 404 516mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 404 516 | Mentioned 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 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.