IAGON v Influx Technologies USA (CFI, 2 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 2 September 2026 (UPC_CFI_2280/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division dismissed the request by Influx Technologies USA, Influx Technologies Limited and two further defendants for security for costs of EUR 112,000 against IAGON, a company based in the United Arab Emirates suing for infringement of EP 3 878 161. A registered office outside the EU and limited financial information are not enough: the party seeking security must show a genuine risk that costs will be irrecoverable or that enforcement will be difficult.

Question

Do the financial position of a recently established claimant and the need to enforce a costs order in the United Arab Emirates justify security under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP?

Decision

Security is a matter for the Court’s discretion, and the party requesting it bears the initial burden of substantiating a legitimate and real concern. A registered office outside the EU or EEA, or incomplete financial information, does not suffice on its own, although actual insolvency need not be shown (paragraphs 12 to 14). IAGON’s MiCA white paper, while limited, states that it has resources for 36 months and no outstanding liabilities. The 2022 difficulties of its Norwegian affiliate are outdated and do not concern IAGON directly (paragraph 16). The UAE seat is a relevant factor, but the defendants gave no concrete example of enforcement difficulties (paragraph 17). The request was therefore rejected (paragraph 18).

Key points for practice

• A claimant’s seat in a third country is not enough by itself: the applicant must document either the claimant’s financial position or concrete obstacles to enforcement in that country.
• The defendants reserved a separate request for security in respect of their future counterclaim for revocation. The order does not address it.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1 and 333

Case law cited

Syntorr v Arthrex, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_889/2025), *** v Amycel, Court of Appeal, 2 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_935/2025), Chint v Jingao, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_431/2025), Aarke v Sodastream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_548/2024)

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.