Hologic v Siemens (UPC_CFI_758/2024)
Decision date:
21 May 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Hologic commenced infringement proceedings against Siemens and, in response, Siemens filed a counterclaim for revocation. Siemans sought security for costs in relation to these proceedings, in the sum of €1.2 million, and requested that Hologic provide the security within three weeks.
- Siemens argued that enforcing a cost order against Hologic would be unduly burdensome because Hologic's registered place of business was in Massachusetts, USA, which had not ratified any international agreement regarding the recognition of foreign judgments. Meanwhile, Hologic maintained that mere foreign domicile does not warrant such an order: rather, it requires a demonstrable risk of non-enforceability of costs and/or concrete indications of financial instability.
- The Düsseldorf LD confirmed that the burden of showing that the enforcement of a cost order is "unduly burdensome" is on the applicant (here, Siemens). The applicant must provide evidence of the applicable foreign law to be applied in the territory where the order will be enforced and apply it to the situation at hand. The Düsseldorf LD held that as Siemens did not do this it did not provide sufficient evidence for its application and its application was dismissed.
- The Düsseldorf LD noted that according to UPC case law, the US courts routinely recognise and enforce judgments of foreign courts.
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.