Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 19 February 2026)
| Date | 19 February 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_541/2025;UPC_CFI_1313/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_541/2025 · UPC_CFI_1313/2025 |
| Parties | Leap Tools Inc. v. Wizart Inc. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 15 October 2025 : Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 15 October 2025) UPC_CFI_541/2025
- 17 November 2025 : Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 17 November 2025) UPC_CFI_541/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In an order of 19 February 2026, given in proceedings UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025 concerning EP 3 859 566, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Wizart’s request that Leap Tools, a Canadian company with no presence in the UPC territory, provide EUR 300,000 as security for costs. The order restates that a seat outside the EU is not enough and that the burden lies on the party seeking security.
Question
Do a claimant’s seat in Canada and estimated revenue below EUR 20 million justify security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158?
Decision
The request was admissible but unfounded (paragraph 8). Security requires that the other party’s financial position give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable, or that enforcement would be unduly burdensome. The party seeking security must substantiate this, including by evidence of the foreign law and its application (paragraphs 9 to 11). A registered office outside the EU or EEA is relevant, but merely referring to it is insufficient, and Wizart offered no evidence on Canadian law (paragraph 13). Revenue below EUR 20 million does not in itself indicate financial instability (paragraph 14).
Key points for practice
- A security request based on enforcement abroad must be supported by evidence of the relevant State’s law and its application (paragraphs 11 and 13).
- Practical point: relying only on a non-European seat or modest revenue exposes a security request to dismissal (paragraphs 13 and 14).
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rule 158
- Case law cited
- Volkswagen v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_218/2024), Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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
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
UPC_CFI_541/2025official numberUPC_CFI_1313/2025official number
Parties
- claimantLeap Tools Inc.3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantWizart Inc.Follow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 15 October 2025 Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 15 October 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_541/2025
Après deux tentatives infructueuses aux États-Unis, le mémoire en demande peut être signifié à Wizart LLC par remise à son dirigeant à une adresse professionnelle en Pologne.
- 17 November 2025 Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 17 November 2025) Withdrawal (RoP265) · UPC_CFI_541/2025
Le désistement de l'action en contrefaçon à l'égard de Wizart LLC est autorisé, la procédure close à son égard et les frais correspondants mis à la charge de Leap Tools.
- 19 February 2026 Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 19 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_541/2025, UPC_CFI_1313/2025
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La division locale de Düsseldorf rejette la demande de garantie pour frais visant un demandeur canadien, faute de preuve du droit canadien et d'éléments sur une instabilité financière.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 859 566mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 17 November 2025) cited in this record
- Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 15 October 2025) cited in this record
- Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025) cited in this record
- Aarke v SodaStream Industries (CoA, 29 November 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 859 566 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 17 November 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.