UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 67/2026

May 8, 2026·EP3016464 +1 more: METHOD FOR MEASURING DISCOVERY SIGNAL, BASE STATION, AND TERMINAL

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Michael Schneider (Eisenführ Speiser)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Telecommunications
Language
English
First decided
May 19, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-19
    Procedural onlyAppeal decisionRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    The Court of Appeal rejected ASC's request for discretionary review of the Munich Local Division's order requiring ASC to provide security for costs. The application for suspensive effect was also rejected as it had become devoid of purpose once the discretionary review request was dismissed.

    Legal issues:Discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP)Suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP)Security for costsManifest error standard for discretionary reviewRisk of cost recoveryFRAND licensing obligationsLitigation insurance as alternative to security for costs
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-19Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-19Not public
Final Order2026-05-19Public
Receipt2026-05-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-18Not public
Application Respondent2026-05-18Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-15Not public
Order2026-05-15Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-15Not public
Receipt2026-05-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-15Not public
Further pleadings2026-05-15Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-05-11Not public
Receipt2026-05-08Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-08Not public
Fee2026-05-08Not public
Proof of payment2026-05-08Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-08Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-08Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-05-08Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The discretionary review request is admissible but must be rejected as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order is manifestly erroneous

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 220.3 RoP; UPC_CoA_489/2024; UPC_CoA_805/2025

  • Xiaomi met the burden of presenting facts and evidence to support assertion of a risk of cost recovery

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 158 RoP

  • Xiaomi's licence offer and bank guarantee did not negate the risk of cost recovery since ASC did not accept the licence offer and the conditions for bank payment were not met

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 158 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The Munich Local Division erred in finding a risk of cost recovery sufficient to justify security for costs

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoP

  • Xiaomi's licence offer and bank guarantee demonstrate absence of risk of cost recovery

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoP

  • Security should be ordered only unless ASC provides proof of having secured litigation insurance

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoP; UPC_CoA_890/2025

  • Application for suspensive effect should be granted pending discretionary review

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 223 RoP