Shenzhen Transsion Holdings v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, UPC_CFI_850/2026, 26 May 2026, doc. 2)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_850/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Lisbon Local Division ordered Shenzhen Transsion, claimant in an infringement action on EP 4 123 910 against four Ericsson companies, to provide security for costs of EUR 100,000 within 21 days, by deposit or bank guarantee, failing which a default decision may be given. Ericsson had sought EUR 300,000. The order confirms that the difficulty of enforcing a costs order in China may justify security even where the claimant’s financial capacity is not disputed.

Question

Can security for costs be imposed on a claimant established in China with no presence in a Member State solely because enforcing a costs order there would be unduly burdensome, and in what amount?

Decision

The defendant must establish the facts justifying security, without having to show that enforcement is impossible (paragraph 7), only the burden of enforcement was in issue, as Transsion’s financial capacity was not disputed (paragraph 8). China is not bound by EU law, no multilateral instrument covers recognition of civil judgments and there is no procedure there for recognising a UPC costs order: enforcement would involve unreasonable expense (paragraphs 12 to 15). Exercising her discretion, the judge set security at half the ceiling for recoverable costs, namely EUR 100,000 for a current value of EUR 1,500,000, disregarding the counterclaim that had merely been announced (paragraphs 17 to 21). Costs of the application were deferred to the merits (paragraphs 25 and 26).

Key points for practice

• The absence of any mechanism for recognising UPC costs orders in the claimant’s home state may suffice to justify security (paragraphs 12 to 15).
• A counterclaim that has only been announced is not taken into account in the value used to calibrate security (paragraph 21).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 23, 158, 333 and 355

Case law cited

JingAo v Chint, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 12 July 2025, Syntorr v Arthrex, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026, Aarke v Sodastream, 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.