TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments (CFI, 15 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 12 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_132/2024, App_20197/2025), the Mannheim Local Division dismissed Total Semiconductor’s request for panel review (Rule 333) of the judge-rapporteur’s order of 11 April 2025 requiring it to provide EUR 600,000 security for costs in its infringement action against three Texas Instruments companies (EP 2 746 957). That order re-issued the order of 16 October 2024, which the Court of Appeal set aside solely because the judge-rapporteur could not rule on leave to appeal.

Question

Does the financial position of a licensing company with no operating business justify EUR 600,000 security for costs, even though it has already deposited the sum?

Decision

Yes. The court asks whether the claimant’s financial position gives rise to a legitimate and real concern. The defendant bears the initial burden, after which the claimant must respond in a substantiated way. The undisputed facts (no operating business, recent incorporation, a co-working address, a licensing business model) suffice, and the parent company’s financing statement is too vague. The deposit already made does not alter the outcome, as it cannot be excluded that the funds were provided only to avoid jeopardising the proceedings. The amount is confirmed in view of the complexity of the case and the revocation counterclaim. Leave to appeal is refused, since the order merely applies principles settled by the Court of Appeal, and the Rule 190 production request has become devoid of purpose.

Key points for practice

• A recently formed licensing company with no demonstrated business or assets faces substantial security for costs, despite a general statement of support from its parent.
• Paying the security during the review neither renders the review moot nor proves the claimant’s solvency.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

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

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 190, 220.2, 220.3, 224.1(b) and 333

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_218/2024, UPC_CoA_220/2024 and UPC_CoA_222/2024), Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Munich Local Division, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_149/2024)

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.