UPC CoA 72/2026

Vor dem UPC: Network System Technologies LLC (77 Verfahren)·Qualcomm Group (28 Verfahren)

• 2026-10-09
  AppealÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal rejected NST's R. 320 RoP applications for re-establishment of rights to appeal the Munich Local Division's rejection of its R. 190 evidence-production applications, finding no excusable error under exceptional circumstances and that all due care was not shown. It also dismissed the request that the appeals lodged on 13 July 2026 be treated as filed in time.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)

  • Re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP
  • Excusable error and all due care
  • Appeal period for orders under R. 224.1(b) RoP (15 days) versus decisions
  • Defective appeal information in first-instance decisions
  • AIM v Supponor
  • R. 190 RoP evidence production application
• 2026-08-17
  AppealÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: Court of Appeal rejected NST's appeals against the dismissal of its R. 190 RoP applications for evidence production as inadmissible (lodged out of the 15-day period applying to orders), and rejected as inadmissible the R. 190 applications refiled in the appeal proceedings, there being no new facts to justify refiling.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)

  • order for production of evidence (Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP)
  • time period for appealing an order
  • excusable error
  • refiled application on appeal
• 2026-07-15
  AppealÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order on court fees covering appeals UPC-CoA-68/2026 through UPC-CoA-72/2026. In appeal UPC-CoA-72/2026, NST had paid only EUR 26,300 instead of the required EUR 43,800 (arguing the value should be halved because Samsung was no longer a respondent); the Court rejected this argument and ordered NST to pay the EUR 17,500 outstanding within 14 days, failing which the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)

  • Court fees on appeal under R. 370.5 and R. 370.6 RoP
  • Value of the action for fee calculation purposes
  • Whether parties may unilaterally reduce appeal fee based on changed party composition
  • Interpretation of R. 220.1(a) RoP for counterclaim for revocation fees following amended Table of court fees