Visibly v Easee (CFI, 30 May 2025)
| Date | 30 May 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_57843/2024 · ORD_58129/2024 |
| Parties | Visibly Inc. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 30 May 2025, the Hamburg Local Division ordered Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo and Easee Holding B.V. to provide joint security of EUR 75,000 for the costs of Visibly, proprietor of EP 3 918 974 (UPC_CFI_525/2024). It refused the claimant any security for the infringement action itself but allowed it in respect of the revocation counterclaim. Leave to appeal was granted.
Question
May a claimant in an infringement action obtain security for costs from the defendant, and on what conditions?
Decision
Art. 69(4) UPCA refers to a request by the defendant. Since the Agreement prevails over the Rules (Art. 41(1)), Rule 158.1 cannot be read as giving the claimant security for the main action, and Art. 14 of Directive 2004/48 does not govern the conditions for security. For the counterclaim, however, the defendant acts as claimant and falls within Art. 69(4). The relevant criterion is the risk of insolvency, which the applicant must substantiate. The 2023 accounts filed were not rebutted, and SME status does not rule out security. The ceiling on recoverable costs is guidance only: EUR 75,000 was held proportionate, having regard to the defendant’s right to an effective defence (sections 1 to 3).
Key points for practice
- A claimant proprietor can obtain security for costs only in respect of the revocation counterclaim.
- The amount results from a balancing exercise: the order set EUR 75,000 where the claimant sought EUR 112,000 and the defendants offered EUR 10,000.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 41(1), 69(4) and 73
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 158.1, 158.5, 220.2, 331.2 and 355.1(a)
- Directive 2004/48/EC
- Art. 14
- Case law cited
- Audi v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Aarke v SodaStream, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 13 February 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_140/2024), Vienna Local Division, 30 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_33/2024), Munich Local Division, 23 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_513/2023), Hamburg Local Division, 1 November 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 December 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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantVisibly Inc.5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le demandeur ne peut obtenir de garantie pour frais au titre de l'action en contrefaçon, mais peut l'obtenir au titre de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité. Les défendeurs doivent fournir conjointement 75 000 euros dans les quatre semaines.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 918 974mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Aarke v SodaStream Industries (CoA, 29 November 2024) cited in this record
- Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 17 September 2024) cited in this record
- Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 13 February 2024) cited in this record
- La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CFI, 13 March 2026) cites this decision
- Easee v Visibly (CoA, 26 June 2025) cites this decision
- Visibly v Easee (CFI, 26 June 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 918 974 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Visibly v Easee (CoA, 23 July 2025) · Easee v Visibly (CoA, 1 July 2025) · Easee v Visibly (CoA, 26 June 2025) · Visibly v Easee (CFI, 26 June 2025) · Yves Prevoo v Visibly (CFI, 18 December 2024) · Easee v Visibly (CFI, 24 October 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.