ICPillar v ARM (CoA, 16 September 2024)
| Date | 16 September 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.2 |
| Registry reference | APL_33746/2024 · ORD_50692/2024 |
| Parties | ICPillar LLC v. SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany G… |
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 order of 16 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024, APL_33746/2024), the Court of Appeal (R. Kalden, presiding and judge-rapporteur, I. Simonsson, P. Rombach) dismissed ICPillar’s appeal against the Paris Local Division’s order of 21 May 2024 requiring it to provide EUR 400,000 as security for the costs of ARM and nine other defendants. The interest of the order lies in the fate of a legal expenses insurance policy first produced on appeal.
Question
Should the Court of Appeal take into account a late-filed costs insurance policy in order to set aside security for costs?
Decision
The Court has a discretion under Rule 222.2 RoP, which it exercises of its own motion, even absent an objection from the other party (paragraph 23). It weighs three factors: whether the document could reasonably have been filed at first instance, its relevance, and the position of the other party (paragraph 24). The policy existed on 14 December 2023 and could have been filed with the written observations of 14 May 2024, merely mentioning the insurance was not enough, as Rule 172.1 RoP requires available evidence on contested facts to be produced (paragraphs 25 to 29). Since ICPillar did not dispute its lack of resources, it had to show that security was unnecessary (paragraphs 32 to 34). Despite its relevance, the policy, disclosed late and heavily redacted, is disregarded (paragraphs 35 to 38). Security of EUR 400,000 is upheld, and a guarantee from a US-licensed bank is refused on substantive grounds, not on grounds of nationality (paragraphs 39 and 40).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a claimant relying on costs insurance to resist security must file the policy itself at first instance, a broker’s declaration or a bare reference will not do.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 158, 171, 172, 222.2 and 262A
- Case law cited
- High Court of Justice of England and Wales, 20 April 2023, [2023] EWHC 850 (Ch)
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: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
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
- claimantICPillar LLC7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSVF Holdco5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantArm France SAS5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantArm lreland Limited5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantArm Poland Sp. z.o.o4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSimulity Labs Limited4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantArm Germany d.o.o4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantArm Germany G3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Appeal RoP220.2
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d'appel écarte la police d'assurance produite pour la première fois en appel, confirme la garantie pour frais de 400 000 euros et refuse une garantie émise par une banque agréée aux États-Unis.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Nokia Technologies v Zhejiang Geely Holding Group (CFI, 20 April 2026) cites this decision
- Viatris Santé v Merz Pharmaceuticals (CoA, 19 December 2025) cites this decision
- EOFLOW v Insulet (CoA, 10 January 2025) cites this decision
- ICPillar v ARM (CFI, 13 December 2024) cites this decision
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.