City Glass and Glazing v Maars Holding (CFI, 19 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_455/2024, ACT_44624/2024, App_52709/2024), The Hague Local Division (Judges Brinkman, Johansson and Kokke, rapporteur) ordered City Glass and Glazing, an Indian company and proprietor of EP 1 651 838, to provide Maars Holding and the three other Maars companies defending its infringement action with security of EUR 19,000, rather than the EUR 49,000 sought, to be deposited in the UPC account by 29 January 2025. Leave to appeal was refused. The order shows how the Court balances the risk of non-enforcement outside the EU against the access to justice of a claimant relying on its SME status.

Question

Can security be required from a claimant established outside the EU that relies on its financial position as an SME and on its right of access to justice, and if so in what amount and form?

Decision

Security is a matter of discretion, exercised in line with EU law, proportionality and a balance of interests. It protects a defendant that did not start the proceedings, but must not unjustifiably impair access to justice (paragraphs 7 to 11). Enforcing a costs order in India is not straightforward, and the defendants’ unchallenged financial information raises a legitimate concern about recovery (paragraphs 12 and 13). City Glass did not show that limited security would prevent it from pursuing its case (paragraphs 14 and 15). Security is reduced to 50% of the ceiling for recoverable costs, namely EUR 19,000, excluding the counterclaim court fee (paragraphs 16 and 17). It is to be provided by deposit rather than bank guarantee, to avoid assessing guarantors, failing which a default decision may follow (paragraphs 18 and 19). Leave to appeal is refused, as guidance on these rules already exists (paragraph 20).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a non-EU claimant relying on access to justice must show concretely that limited security would stop it from proceeding, otherwise it may at most obtain a reduction of the amount.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 69(1), 69(4) and 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1, 158.2, 158.4, 220.2, 224.1(b) and 331.2

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 14

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Arts 47 and 52(1)

Case law cited

Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 26 August 2024, President and Fellows of Harvard College v NanoString, Munich Central Division, 30 October 2023, Volkswagen v Network System Technologies, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 13 February 2024. The order also cites the CJEU judgments in Guarnieri (C-291/09, 7 April 2011) and DEB (C-279/09, 22 December 2010).

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.