Opens in a new tab

Visibly v Easee (CFI, 30 May 2025)

Date30 May 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionHamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_57843/2024 · ORD_58129/2024
PartiesVisibly 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 918 974Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.