UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_542/2025 App_28639/2025 (Appeal Easee) UPC_CoA_526/2025 APL_28246/2025 App_28261/2025 App_28260/2025 (Appeal Visibly)

ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 1 July 2025

concerning an application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP)

APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS (AND DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)

Easee B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands Amsterdam, The Netherlands Easee Holding B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands

(hereinafter for all: 'Easee', for Appellant 1 and 3: 'Easee companies'; for Appellant 2: 'managing director')

represented by Dr. Wim Maas, attorney-at-law, Taylor Wessing N.V., Eindhoven, The Netherlands

RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT (AND CLAIMANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)

Visibly Inc., Chicago, Unites States of America

(hereinafter: 'Visibly')

represented by Dr. Marc Grunwald and other attorneys-at-law of the law firm Peterreins Schley, Munich, Germany; Dr. Malte Frese, Patent Attorney, and other patent attorneys of the law firm Hemmer Lindfeld Frese, Lübeck, Germany

PATENT AT ISSUE

EP 3 918 974

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

English

PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES

Rian Kalden, presiding judge and legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge

IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Date: 30 May 2025, Hamburg Local Division,

Reference numbers attributed by the Court of First Instance: ORD_58129/2024, App_57843/2024 in relation to the main proceedings concerning infringement action ACT_51510/2024 UPC_CFI_525/2024

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Visibly filed an action against the two Easee companies and their managing director for infringement of its patent EP 3 918 974 (patent at issue). Easee filed a counterclaim for revocation. Visibly requested that Easee be ordered to provide Visibly with appropriate security for costs of the legal dispute in the amount of EUR 112,000. Easee requested that the court dismiss the application, alternatively that the security is to be set at EUR 10,000. In the impugned order, the Hamburg Local Division ordered Easee to provide security for legal costs in the amount of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action within four weeks of receiving the order. The Local Division denied the request for security for costs for the infringement proceedings. Easee and Visibly appealed this order insofar as it is to their disadvantage. With order of 26 June 2025 (ORD_26598/2025) the Hamburg Local Division ordered that the proceedings are stayed in their entirety (meaning also regarding the managing director) due to the insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER

According to R. 295m RoP the Court may stay proceedings in any case where the proper administration of justice so requires. This requirement is met in view of the stay of the proceedings ordered by the Hamburg Local Division. While proceedings are stayed, time shall cease to run for the purpose of procedural periods (R. 296.3 RoP). This means that during the stay of the proceedings Easee is not obliged to provide the ordered security and that during the stay of the proceedings both appeals are devoid of purpose. This justifies the stay of the appeal proceedings.

ORDER

The proceedings are stayed in their entirety for the time that the CFI proceedings are stayed.

INFORMATION TO THE PARTIES

During a stay of the proceedings all time limits are automatically suspended and shall begin to run afresh from the date on which the stay comes to an end, R. 296.3 RoP.

Issued on 1 July 2025

Rian Kalden, presiding judge and legally qualified judge

Rian Kalden Date: 2025.07.01 17:30:46 +02'00'

Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur

Patricia Ursula Rombach Digitally signed by Patricia Ursula Rombach Date: 2025.07.01 17:22:50 +02'00'

Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.07.01 17:26:03 +02'00'

Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge