Opens in a new tab

ICPillar v ARM (CoA, 16 September 2024)

Date16 September 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Registry referenceAPL_33746/2024 · ORD_50692/2024
PartiesICPillar 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

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.

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.