Below, Prof. Willem Hoyng provides his unfiltered views on the decisions that were published on the website of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) last week. His comments offer a unique insight into the UPC’s case law, as he chairs the Advisory Board of the UPC and participated in drafting the Rules of Procedure of the UPC.
Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe here for weekly updates.
On the go, multi-tasking or just prefer to listen? “Willem Hoyng’s UPC Unfiltered AI Podcast” – your weekly, AI-generated podcast discussing Willem Hoyng’s commentary on UPC case law of last week, offers a convenient alternative. Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
15 June 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Request for security of costs
Facts
The defendant asked for security of €400,000 because (1) the claimant is based in Texas and there are no international treaties between the US and the EU about enforcing judgments and (2) the claimant is a Non-Practicing Entity (“NPE”) and there is no publicly available information about the claimant.
The claimant argues that the US system is safe and reliable, and there is no insolvency risk because of the 96 patent families it holds worldwide.
The Court
The Court considers that the defendant did not prove that enforcement in the US is unduly burdensome.