2026-06-10 - LD Hamburg - Nixu FL IP Protection v. Infoblox et al. - UPC-CFI-0000360/2026

ENGLISH: 1. Section 55 of Florida Statutes which make the recognition of foreign court judgments conditioned to the assessment that there is no conflict with the ordre publique, that reciprocity must be guaranteed, and that the principles of a fair trial must be upheld, does as such not give reasons to assume that the enforcement of a cost decision by the UPC in Florida could be doubtful. These principles are international standards and equally present in European jurisdictions and do not justify the ordering of a security according to R. 158 RoP. 2. If a claimant’s assets essentially consist of a patent portfolio, who’s value not only naturally depends on the outcome of the patent infringement proceedings (see CoA, Order of 17 September 2024 – UPC_CoA_217/2024), but where all licenses to such patents, as well as all income, royalties, proceeds and liabilities are already pledged to someone else, claimant is rendered basically assetless in an economical sense, which justifies the ordering of a security according to R. 158 RoP.

The Hamburg Local Division (judge-rapporteur Schilling) ordered a US-domiciled NPE claimant to provide EUR 200,000 security for the defendants' costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP. The court confirmed standing UPC practice that US (here, Florida) domicile does not by itself justify security, because UPC cost orders are in principle and in practice recognised and enforced in the US and the recognition conditions in Florida law (ordre public, reciprocity, fair trial) reflect international standards. Security was nonetheless justified on the claimant's financial position: a recently incorporated single-purpose entity whose entire patent portfolio, licences and future income are pledged under a security agreement is 'basically assetless in an economical sense' despite retaining legal ownership. The court held the amount of security is discretionary and not automatically tied to the recoverable-cost ceiling, balancing the applicant's protection against the claimant's Art. 47 Charter right to an effective remedy, and set it at 50% of the ceiling.