La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CoA, 1 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 1 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_48/2026), the Court of Appeal dismisses La Siddhi Consultancy’s appeal against the order of the Milan Central Division of 13 March 2026, which had required it to provide security of EUR 75,000 for the costs of Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm in its revocation action against EP 3 592 333. The Court lays down a clear principle: SME status, or an SME declaration, does not in itself exempt a claimant from providing security.

Question

Does a claimant’s SME status bar security for costs, or require a reduction of the ceiling used to calculate its amount?

Decision

No. The party seeking security bears the initial burden. Once it credibly presents facts, the other party, which holds the financial information, must dispute them in a substantiated way (paragraphs 12 and 13). Neither Art. 69(4) UPCA nor Rule 158 RoP provides an SME exception, and Rule 370.8 RoP on reduced fees pursues different aims (paragraphs 18 to 21). Absent a substantiated challenge, the respondents’ facts are treated as established (Rule 171.2 RoP, paragraphs 22 to 24), the new declaration filed on appeal is disregarded under Rule 222.2 RoP (paragraph 26). The amount starts from the applicable ceiling (EUR 112,000), weighted by the circumstances. The reduction to EUR 75,000 fell within the first instance’s discretion, and the appellant had not applied to lower the ceiling on the ground that costs threatened its economic existence (paragraphs 29 to 34).

Key points for practice

• An SME declaration is no substitute for financial information capable of rebutting the risk that costs will not be recovered.
• Practical point: an SME threatened by the level of costs should apply to lower the ceiling under Art. 2(2) of the Administrative Committee decision of 24 April 2023.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 52(3) and 69(1) and (4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 152, 158.1, 171.2, 172, 222.2 and 370.8

Case law cited

Court of Appeal: AorticLab v Emboline, 20 June 2025, Syntorr v Arthrex, 18 February 2026, Volkswagen v Network System Technologies, 17 September 2024, Audi v Network System Technologies, 17 September 2024, ICPillar v ARM, 16 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024), Chint v JingAO, 9 July 2025, Suinno v Microsoft, 12 July 2025, Adobe v Keeex, 30 April 2026

Related decisions

• La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques, 13 March 2026, order of the Milan Central Division under appeal.
• La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques, 14 April 2026, Court of Appeal order refusing suspensive effect.

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.