La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CFI, 13 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 13 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_927/2025), the Milan Central Division, ordered La Siddhi Consultancy, the UK claimant in the revocation action against unitary patent EP 3 592 333, to provide within six weeks security of EUR 75,000 for the costs of Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm, which had sought EUR 112,000. The order shows that security follows an estimate of first-instance costs rather than the ceiling, and that SME status must be shown with figures.

Question

Does the claimant’s financial position justify security for costs under Rule 158 RoP, in what amount and within what time, and does its SME status warrant a reduction?

Decision

The test is whether there is a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recovered, in light of the claimant’s own position. The group’s position is irrelevant absent a guarantee (paragraph 14). The undisputed 2024 balance sheet leaves a margin of about EUR 31,000 between current assets and current liabilities, and the claimant showed no improvement (paragraphs 20 to 24). For a value in dispute of EUR 1 million the ceiling is EUR 112,000, but the Division set EUR 75,000 in the absence of a costs estimate, excluding appeal costs (paragraphs 25 to 28). The declaration filed gave no figures on headcount, turnover or balance sheet, so micro-enterprise status was not established (paragraph 29). Six weeks is a reasonable time limit (paragraph 31), and leave to appeal was granted.

Key points for practice

• The ceiling on recoverable costs is not the default amount of security: absent an estimate, the Division sets a lower figure itself.
• Practical point: a claimant relying on SME status to reduce security must produce its headcount, turnover and balance sheet.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1) and (4) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1, 158.4, 158.5, 171.2, 220.2, 224.1(b), 355 and 370.8

Other texts

Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, Annex, Art. 2(3)

Case law cited

Syntorr v Arthrex, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026, Chint v JingAo, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, Audi v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 12 July 2025, Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Visibly v Easee, Hamburg Local Division, 30 May 2025, BfexaQC v NVIDIA, Munich Local Division, 28 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_729/2025)

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.