Syntorr LP v Arthrex (CoA, UPC_CoA_889/2025, 18 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 18 February 2026 (UPC_CoA_889/2025), the Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_114/2025) requiring Syntorr, a Cypriot company and proprietor of EP 3 835 470, to provide EUR 2,000,000 as security for costs in its action against Arthrex, and ordered release of the bank guarantee provided. Non-cancellable litigation insurance was enough to dispel concern about recovery.

Question

Must a litigation costs policy that cannot be avoided or cancelled as regards the defendant’s costs be taken into account in assessing the claimant’s financial position under Rule 158?

Decision

Security requires a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable (paragraph 19), the initial burden lies on the party seeking security, after which the other party must respond with substantiated argument (paragraph 20). The division wrongly treated the obligation to provide security as undisputed (paragraphs 22 to 24). The policy forms part of the financial position (paragraph 25) and its validity was established (paragraphs 26 to 28). The endorsement makes it non-voidable and non-cancellable for the defendants’ costs up to EUR 4,000,000 (paragraphs 29 to 31), any termination taking effect only after 60 days’ notice and for future costs (paragraphs 32 and 33). Security was therefore unnecessary (paragraph 35).

Key points for practice

• Litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement can suffice to defeat a request for security for costs (paragraphs 29 to 35).
• Practical point: file the policy, its terms and evidence on the insurer’s standing at first instance to substantiate opposition to security (paragraphs 20 to 28).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1, 220.3, 220.4, 333 and 352.2

Case law cited

AorticLab v Emboline, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025, Audi v Network System Technologies, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Volkswagen v Network System Technologies, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_218/2024), Chint v JingAo, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, Oerlikon v Bhagat, Court of Appeal, 30 October 2025, Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 12 July 2025, ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 16 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024)

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.