In(k)control v Esko-Graphics (CFI, UPC_CFI_871/2026, 16 September 2026, doc. 2)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 16 September 2026, issued in Dutch, the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division ordered In(k)control, proprietor of EP 3 841 735, to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 in favour of Esko-Graphics and Esko Software, the defendants to its infringement action. The order is useful for its method: the value of the dispute is assessed provisionally, including the announced counterclaim, to identify the ceiling for recoverable costs, and the security is then set below that ceiling in light of the concrete risk of insolvency.

Question

How should the amount of security under Rule 158 RoP be determined where the claimant does not dispute that the conditions for ordering it are met (paragraph 9)?

Decision

The judge took into account the counterclaim for revocation which the defendants formally undertook to file (paragraphs 16 to 18) and valued each claim at EUR 500,000, giving a total of EUR 1,000,000 (paragraph 23) and a ceiling of EUR 112,000. Article 2(2) of the Scale of Recoverable Costs, relevant at the security stage, was considered but not applied, since the claimant had no operational activity in 2024 and 2025 (paragraphs 27 to 29). Security was set at EUR 75,000 having regard to negative equity, uncertain support from the parent company and doubts as to the claimant’s ability to continue as a going concern (paragraphs 31 to 33). All other requests were dismissed. According to the headnotes, the value of the dispute is only definitively determined at the interim conference.

Key points for practice

• The value adopted at the security stage is provisional and does not bind the assessment made at the interim conference.
• Security may be set below the ceiling for recoverable costs, depending on the claimant’s actual financial position.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 69(4) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 104(i), 152.2, 158, 220.2, 295(d), 296.3, 370.6 and 370.8

Other provisions

Scale of Ceilings for Recoverable Costs, Art. 2(2), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, Directive 2004/48, Art. 3(1), Belgian Code of Companies and Associations, Art. 3:6

Case law cited

Syntorr v Arthrex, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026, Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 28 April 2026, Adobe v Keeex, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2026, La Siddhi v Athena Pharmaceutiques, Court of Appeal, 1 June 2026, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments, Mannheim Local Division, 12 September 2025

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.