UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 74/2026

11. 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
26. Mai 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-26
    Nur prozessualBerufungsentscheidungRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    The Court of Appeal rejected ASC's request for a discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Munich Local Division's order requiring ASC to provide security for costs. The Court found that ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that it raised a fundamental question of law.

    Rechtsfragen:Discretionary review admissibility (R. 220.3 RoP)Security for costsManifest error standard for discretionary reviewBurden of proof for risk of cost recoveryFRAND objection to injunctive reliefLitigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement as alternative to security for costs
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-26Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-05-26Öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-22Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-22Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-05-22Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-15Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-05-15Öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-13Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Respondents met the burden of presenting facts and evidence to support their assertion of a risk of cost recovery, including financial information relating to ASC's financial situation

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP; security for costs framework
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The Munich LD erred in finding that Respondents had met the burden of demonstrating a risk of cost recovery

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP

  • A bank guarantee provided on 30 January 2026 in separate proceedings negated the risk of cost recovery found by the Munich LD

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP

  • The Munich LD erred in not considering the possibility for ASC to provide secured litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer as an alternative to security for costs

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 158 RoP