Chint New Energy Technology v JingAo Solar (UPC_CoA_430/2025)
Decision date:
09 July 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- JingAo commenced infringement proceedings against Chint in the Munich LD in relation to its patent concerning a solar cell (EP 541). Chint filed a revocation counterclaim.
- Chint successfully lodged an application under Rule 158 RoP requesting that JingAo provide security for costs.
- JingAo also successfully lodged an application pursuant to Rule 158 RoP requesting that Chint provide security for costs. The Munich LD granted the order against Chint but not the five other defendants in the infringement action. The judge-rapporteur left open the question of whether a party acting solely as claimant is entitled to request security under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. This was because the judge-rapporteur considered JingAo to be not only a claimant in the infringement action, but also the defendant in the revocation counterclaim.
- Chint lodged an appeal against the security order, requesting that the Court of Appeal revoke it and order JingAo to bear the costs of the appeal. In short, Chint argued that Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for an order against a party who is both the defendant in an infringement action and the claimant in respect of a counterclaim for revocation. Chint maintained that providing security would be an undue restriction for a defendant in an infringement action.
- The Court of Appeal ruled that the appeal against the order was inadmissible because it was a case management order issued by a judge-rapporteur (Rule 333.1 RoP). A case management order can only be appealed if it has first been reviewed by the panel pursuant to Rule 333.1 RoP. This system is designed to prevent the unnecessary involvement of the Court of Appeal in circumstances where the panel of the Court of First Instance does not share the opinion of the judge-rapporteur.
- The fact that the judge-rapporteur expressly ruled that an appeal may be filed in the order, did not alter the Court of Appeal's assessment as the admissibility of an appeal was not at the discretion of the judge-rapporteur of the Court of First Instance.
- Chint had requested that the question of admissibility of its appeal be heard by the full Court of Appeal; however, this was rejected. A Court of Appeal panel may refer an action to the full court under Rule 238A RoP if the case is of exceptional importance and, in particular, where the decision may affect the consistency of the UPC's case law. The Court of Appeal concluded that this case was not exceptional and its case law on admissibility of appeals of case management orders issued by judge-rapporteurs was consistent.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.