*** v AMYCEL (CoA, 2 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 2 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_935/2025), the Court of Appeal orders the appellant, a natural person doing business in Poland whose name is redacted, to provide security of EUR 28,000 for the costs of AMYCEL, LLC within three weeks of service. The appeal is against the decision by default of the Hague Local Division of 21 October 2025 (EP 1 993 350). The order clarifies the indicia that support security on appeal and how its amount is set.

Question

May the respondent obtain security for costs from the appellant (Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158), and in what amount?

Decision

Yes. On appeal, the appellant is the applicant within Art. 69(4), so only the respondent may in principle request security (paragraphs 7 to 10). Security protects against the risk that a costs order will be unrecoverable or unduly burdensome to enforce. Residence abroad is not enough and insolvency need not be proven (paragraphs 11 to 14). Repeated claims of financial hardship, refusal to provide financial information and non-payment of earlier costs, interim damages and court fees together amount to sufficiently specific and concrete indicia (paragraphs 15 to 21), which the appellant does not rebut by asserting, without evidence, that he owns assets in Poland (paragraphs 22 and 23). No prior attempt at enforcement is required (paragraphs 24 and 25). The EUR 56,000 ceiling is not awarded automatically: since the appeal mainly concerns legal and procedural issues, security is set at about 50% of the ceiling (paragraphs 27 to 31).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a respondent seeking security should assemble concrete indicia (unpaid sums, silence on financial position), an appellant resisting it must produce objective information on its assets and their enforceability.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rule 158

Case law cited

Volkswagen v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_218/2024), Audi v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024), AorticLab v Emboline, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025, Oerlikon v Bhagat, Court of Appeal, 30 October 2025, Hefei v Grundfos, Court of Appeal, 9 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_622/2025), Suinno v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 28 April 2026

Related decisions

• Amycel, 21 October 2025, Hague Local Division decision by default under appeal.

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.