A recent ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the case of President and Fellows of Harvard College v. NanoString Technologies Europe Ltd. has underscored significant questions about security costs in litigation. On October 30th, the UPC ordered NanoString, a UK-based firm, to pay €300,000 (equivalent to $329,448) as a security deposit for the legal expenses of Harvard College.
The decision, however, does not establish a one-size-fits-all precedent for future litigation. As commentators have noted, each security for costs application can return unique verdicts, influenced by an intricate blend of factors. Simply, the results of such applications will be distinctly fact-dependent.
This essentially means that respondents in analogous scenarios should be well-equipped to provide detailed statements about their financial standing. The readiness to disclose financial information may significantly influence the outcomes of applications for securing legal costs, as observed from the UPC’s ruling in favor of Harvard College in this case.
The said verdict, supplemented by this interpretive understanding of the case’s implications, is eloquently discussed in a Law360 article by Tom Brazier.