Opens in a new tab

Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 19 February 2026)

Date19 February 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_541/2025;UPC_CFI_1313/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_541/2025 · UPC_CFI_1313/2025
PartiesLeap Tools Inc. v. Wizart Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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_541/2025 official number
  • UPC_CFI_1313/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 859 566Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Leap Tools v Wizart (CFI, 17 November 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.