2026-04-23 - LD Munich - Advanced Standard Communication v. Xiaomi - UPC_CFI_617/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_617/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Advanced Standard Communication LLC v. XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-04-23 - LD Munich - Advanced Standard Communication
v.
Xiaomi - UPC_CFI_617/2024
ENGLISH:
A bank guarantee provided by a Defendant, as part of an objection of compulsory licence
under antitrust law, as security for any potential licence payment obligations towards the
Claimant and thus to avert an injunction claim asserted by the Claimant (“FRAND security”),
does not, in principle, relieve the Claimant of the obligation to provide security for costs, even
if the amount of the bank guarantee exceeds the amount of the security for costs.
Neither does the bank guarantee constitute a valuable asset of the Claimant to which the
Defendant may have recourse for recovery of his costs, nor does the provision of the bank
guarantee allow the conclusion that the Defendant is obliged to pay licence fees to the
Claimant against which he could set off a claim for recoverable costs.
notable
On a panel review under R. 333.1 RoP, the Munich Local Division upheld the Judge-Rapporteur's order requiring the claimant (a Delaware/Texas patent-assertion LLC) to provide EUR 300,000 security for costs in a SEP infringement action where the defendants had raised a FRAND/compulsory-licence objection. In a headnoted ruling the Court held that a bank guarantee the defendants had provided as 'FRAND security' (covering potential licence-payment obligations to avert an injunction) does not relieve the claimant of its obligation to provide security for costs, even where it exceeds the cost-security amount, because that guarantee is neither a recoverable asset of the claimant nor evidence of a set-off-able licence-fee debt. The Court further held that obtaining After-The-Event (ATE) litigation insurance — even with an anti-avoidance endorsement — does not automatically discharge an ordered security obligation: under R. 158.1 RoP security may be provided only by bank guarantee or deposit, and the suitability of any ATE policy must be assessed case-by-case on its terms. It reaffirmed the established CoA burden-of-substantiation framework, holding the claimant's reliance on its LLC form and the FRAND security, without disclosing its own finances, insufficient.