UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 221/2024

May 10, 2024·EP1552669 · INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSACTIONS

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
English
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked

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

This dispute contains 16 other proceedings

UPC CoA 217/2024·UPC CoA 219/2024·CC 24451/2024·CC 24454/2024·UPC APP 11431/2024 and 11 more

23 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 68/2026·UPC CoA 69/2026·UPC CoA 70/2026·UPC CoA 71/2026·UPC CoA 72/2026 and 18 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-06-17

    Summary: The Court of Appeal ruled on Audi AG's request to file additional written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in an appeal against a first-instance order denying Audi's application for security for costs (R. 158 RoP) in infringement proceedings brought against it by Network System Technologies LLC. The CoA held that R. 101-110 apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and that R. 35 and R. 36 are therefore applicable on appeal. The Court granted Audi's request to submit a brief reply to correct facts stated by NST in its response.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Application for additional written pleadings (R. 36 RoP)
    • Applicability of interim procedure rules in appeal (R. 239.1 RoP)
    • Security for costs (R. 158 RoP)
  • 2024-05-22

    Summary: Court of Appeal denied Audi's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines (Rule 225(e), Rule 9.3(b) RoP) in its appeal against the dismissal of its security for costs application. The request was denied as 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 (Rule 158 RoP)
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-02-19Not public
Close workflow2025-02-19Public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-19Not public
release of security2025-02-19Public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-02-14Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-02-14Not public
Receipt2025-01-28Not public
Exhibit P SC 22025-01-27Not public
Application2025-01-27Not public
Receipt2025-01-20Not public