Helios Streaming v Rakuten TV Europe (CFI, UPC_CFI_1646/2025, 30 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 4 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order of 30 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_1646/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division dismisses Rakuten’s application for Helios Streaming to provide EUR 200,000 as security for costs. The claimant’s US domicile and patent monetisation business are not enough without concrete facts on its financial position.

Facts and procedure

Helios Streaming, a Californian company licensing patent portfolios, sues Rakuten TV Europe, Viki and Rakuten Group for infringement of EP 2 613 543, owned by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute. The defendants argued that the claimant, founded in 2018 with no more than ten employees, holds few other patents in Europe and merely monetises rights it does not own.

Question

Do a patent monetisation business and the absence of known assets justify security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158?

Decision

The judge recalls that security protects against the risk that costs cannot be recovered, whether because of enforcement difficulties or the claimant’s insolvency (Suinno v Microsoft). A US domicile alone does not justify it, in line with settled UPC practice. The defendant bears the burden of setting out credible facts, the claimant being required to respond in detail only afterwards.

The facts relied on are insufficient. The company’s age and headcount say nothing about its solvency. The patents it holds are neither identified nor valued, although the value of a portfolio depends on its exploitation and pending litigation. Lack of knowledge of other assets does not prove their absence, a Californian company being very likely required to file annual reports. Having not even tried to gather such information, the defendants cannot require the claimant to disclose its finances. The order, a case management decision, is subject to panel review rather than appeal.

Key points for practice

• Non-practising entity status is not in itself a ground for security for costs at the UPC.
• The defendant must document the recovery risk through actual research into the claimant’s public data.
• An order on security for costs is a case management order, subject to panel review (Rule 333).

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Article 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158 and 333

Case law cited

Suinno v Microsoft (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_21/2026, 28 April 2026), Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_651/2024, 14 January 2025), Ballino v Kinexon (Hamburg Local Division, UPC_CFI_151/2024, 14 May 2024).

Related decisions

• Hamburg Local Division, 10 June 2026, Nixu v Infoblox: US domicile insufficient for security
• Court of Appeal, 28 April 2026, Suinno v Microsoft: purpose of security for costs

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 4 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.