La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CoA, 14 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 14 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_48/2026), the Court of Appeal rejects La Siddhi Consultancy’s application for suspensive effect against the Milan Central Division’s order of 13 March 2026, which required it to provide EUR 75,000 security for costs in its revocation action on EP 3 592 333 against Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm. The order confirms that suspensive effect remains exceptional and that SME status does not dispense with concrete proof of inability to pay.

Question

Should an appeal against an order for security for costs, brought with leave under Rule 220.2, be given suspensive effect?

Decision

The application is admissible, since Art. 74 UPCA allows suspensive effect for Rule 220.2 orders and prevails over the Rules (paragraphs 8 and 9). It is unfounded: suspensive effect requires exceptional circumstances, such as an appeal that would otherwise be devoid of purpose, a manifestly wrong decision or a serious breach of procedural rights (paragraphs 10 to 13). The applicant shows neither a manifest error nor a breach of the right to be heard, the correctness of the reasoning being a matter for the appeal (paragraph 15), nor inability to pay, SME status alone being insufficient (paragraphs 16 and 17). The appeal keeps its purpose, as a deposit can be refunded or a guarantee released, and Art. 47 of the Charter is not infringed (paragraph 18). No costs order is made (paragraph 19).

Key points for practice

• Because security for costs is reversible, enforcing it does not deprive the appeal of its purpose and does not, as a rule, justify suspensive effect.
• Inability to provide the security must be shown by concrete financial evidence.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4) and 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 1.1, 158, 220.2 and 223

Case law cited

ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, Court of Appeal, 25 August 2025, Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 6 November 2023, Progress Maschinen v AWM, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, Windhager v Bellissa, Court of Appeal, 2 December 2025, Alpina v Cup&Cino, Court of Appeal, 24 March 2026, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024, Chint v Jingao, Court of Appeal, 20 May 2025, Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026

Related decisions

• La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques, 13 March 2026, security for costs order under appeal.
• La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques, 1 June 2026, later Court of Appeal decision in the same proceedings.

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.