UPClytics
View all cases

UPC APP 7580/2024

·EP3611989 +3 more: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK INFORMATION

Case details
Status
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Tobias J. Hessel (Clifford Chance)
Respondents
Reps: Stephan Dorn (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Telecommunications
Language
First decided
Feb 22, 2024
Decisions
  • 2024-02-22
    DismissedAppeal decisionApplication for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e))

    The UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Netgear's request to expedite the appeal and shorten the respondent's time period for filing a statement of response, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated given the interests of Huawei and principles of due process in proceedings challenging a separation order.

    Legal issues:Expedition of appeal (R.225(e), R.9.3(b) RoP)Shortening of time period for statement of responseInterests of respondent and due processAppeal against separation order (R.302.1 RoP)
  • 2024-02-22
    DismissedAppeal decisionApplication for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e))

    Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) rejecting Netgear's application under R. 225(e) / R. 9.3(b) RoP to accelerate the appeal proceedings (against an order bifurcating the case under R. 302.1 RoP in Huawei v Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321). The request was filed on the last day of the time limits for the appeal response, and the court refused to shorten the respondent's (Huawei's) deadline to reply, weighing Huawei's interest in a fair hearing against the risk that the first-instance defence would need to be filed before the appeal outcome.

    Legal issues:Expedition of appeal proceedings under R. 225(e) RoPShortening of response deadline R. 9.3(b) RoPDue process and interests of respondent
Documents
  • 4.%20Order%20expedition%20APP7580%20in%20APL5395%20EN%20final.pdf2024-02-22DE
  • C658A3C13B075FA91487B6EE9943FB7E_de.pdf2024-02-22DE