SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme v STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions (CFI, 31 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_33/2024, ACT_4261/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Vienna Local Division granted leave to intervene to Chainzone Technology (Foshan), the Chinese supplier of the LED signs alleged to infringe EP 2 643 717, in support of STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions in the action brought by SWARCO Futurit, on condition that it lodge security for costs of EUR 134,000 by 20 August 2024.

Question

May an intervener based in China be required to provide security for costs, and in what amount?

Decision

The application, lodged before the close of the written procedure, is admissible (Rule 314.2 RoP). The required legal interest is a direct and present interest in the order sought. It is made out here, since the claimant alleges that the intervener’s product infringes the patent, and no party objects. Art. 69(4) UPCA (referred to in the order as a provision of the « EPÜ ») concerns only security from the claimant, but Rule 158 RoP applies to « the parties », and thus to an admitted intervener. As a costs award cannot be enforced in China absent an agreement, security is justified. The amount follows the Administrative Committee’s ceilings on recoverable representation costs and the court fee table, for first instance and appeal. Expert fees are excluded, as the court intends to assign a technically qualified judge instead. The intervener may file its statement by 20 August 2024.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an admitted intervener is a party for the purposes of Rule 158 RoP and, if based in a State where enforcement of a costs decision is not assured, may have to provide security as a condition of intervening.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 69(1) and (4) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 220.2, 313.1, 314 and 355

Other provisions

Administrative Committee decisions AC/10/24042023_D (ceilings on recoverable costs) and AC/05/08072022_D (table of court fees)

Case law cited

Ocado Innovation v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 January 2024, Seoul Viosys v expert klein, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 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.