UPC CoA 218/2024

At the UPC: Volkswagen Group (41 cases)·Network System Technologies LLC (77 cases)

• 2025-02-19
  Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal ordered the release of security deposits (totalling EUR 500,000) that NTS had provided for costs in three related cases, following withdrawal of the underlying infringement actions by NTS at the Munich Local Division.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Release of security for costs (Rule 352.2 RoP)
  • Withdrawal of infringement action
• 2024-09-27
  Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal issued a separate notification to NST (Network System Technologies LLC) pursuant to R.158.4 RoP, informing it that failure to provide the ordered security for costs within three weeks may result in a decision by default in the main infringement proceedings brought by NST against Volkswagen AG.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Security for costs
  • R.158.4 RoP notification
  • Default decision
  • R.355 RoP
  • Rectification of order
• 2024-09-17
  Appeal RoP220.2Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders refusing security for costs and ordered Network System Technologies LLC to provide security for costs to Volkswagen AG, finding that NST's financial position as a special-purpose patent enforcement entity created a legitimate concern that a cost order might not be recoverable.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Security for costs (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP)
  • Burden of proof for security for costs
  • Financial position of special-purpose patent enforcement entity
  • Relative financial position of parties irrelevant
• 2024-06-17
  Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Volkswagen AG's application to file additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_218/2024) challenging a CFI order on security for costs in an infringement action by Network System Technologies LLC. Volkswagen sought to respond to certain facts in NST's statement of response. The Court held that R. 239.1 RoP makes R. 35 and R. 36 RoP applicable in appeal proceedings mutatis mutandis but found no sufficient grounds for allowing additional pleadings in the circumstances.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Additional written pleadings in appeal under R. 36 and R. 9.3(b) RoP
  • Application of written procedure rules to appeal proceedings under R. 239.1 RoP
  • Security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R. 158.1 RoP
• 2024-05-22
  Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Expedition of appeal (Rule 225(e) RoP)
  • Shortening of deadlines (Rule 9.3(b) RoP)
  • Security for costs appeal