UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 67/2026

8. Mai 2026·EP3016464 +1 more: METHOD FOR MEASURING DISCOVERY SIGNAL, BASE STATION, AND TERMINAL

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Michael Schneider (Eisenführ Speiser)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Telecommunications
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
19. Mai 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-19
    Nur prozessualBerufungsentscheidungRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    The Court of Appeal rejected ASC's request for discretionary review of the Munich Local Division's order requiring ASC to provide security for costs. The application for suspensive effect was also rejected as it had become devoid of purpose once the discretionary review request was dismissed.

    Rechtsfragen:Discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP)Suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP)Security for costsManifest error standard for discretionary reviewRisk of cost recoveryFRAND licensing obligationsLitigation insurance as alternative to security for costs
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-19Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-19Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-05-19Öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-05-18Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-05-15Öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Further pleadings2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The discretionary review request is admissible but must be rejected as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order is manifestly erroneous

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP; UPC_CoA_489/2024; UPC_CoA_805/2025

  • Xiaomi met the burden of presenting facts and evidence to support assertion of a risk of cost recovery

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP

  • Xiaomi's licence offer and bank guarantee did not negate the risk of cost recovery since ASC did not accept the licence offer and the conditions for bank payment were not met

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The Munich Local Division erred in finding a risk of cost recovery sufficient to justify security for costs

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP

  • Xiaomi's licence offer and bank guarantee demonstrate absence of risk of cost recovery

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP

  • Security should be ordered only unless ASC provides proof of having secured litigation insurance

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP; UPC_CoA_890/2025

  • Application for suspensive effect should be granted pending discretionary review

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 223 RoP