UPC CoA 69/2026

At the UPC: Network System Technologies LLC (77 cases)·Qualcomm Group (28 cases)

• 2026-10-09
  AppealPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal rejected NST's applications under R. 320 RoP for re-establishment of rights to appeal the Munich Local Division's rejection of its R. 190 evidence-production applications, finding no excusable error or exceptional circumstances and that all due care was not shown. It also dismissed the request to treat the appeals lodged on 13 July 2026 as in time.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP
  • Excusable error and due care
  • Appeal period for orders under R. 224.1(b) RoP versus decisions
  • R. 190 RoP application to produce evidence
  • Missing appeal information in first-instance decisions
• 2026-08-17
  AppealPublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal rejected NST's appeals against the dismissal of its R. 190 RoP applications for evidence production as inadmissible (lodged out of the 15-day period applying to orders), and rejected as inadmissible the R. 190 applications refiled in the appeal proceedings, there being no new facts to justify refiling.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • order for production of evidence (Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP)
  • time period for appealing an order
  • excusable error
  • refiled application on appeal
• 2026-07-15
  AppealPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order on court fees in five related appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-68 through 72/2026). Qualcomm's request for reimbursement of court fees in UPC-CoA-68/2026 was dismissed, and NST was ordered to pay outstanding court fees totalling EUR 99,000 across UPC-CoA-69, 71 and 72/2026 within 14 days, failing which those appeals would be rejected as inadmissible.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Calculation of court fees on appeal under R. 220.1(a) RoP
  • Whether parties may unilaterally determine value of action for fee calculation purposes
  • Obligation to pay court fees based on value of action determined by Court of First Instance
  • Court fee for counterclaim for revocation on appeal under amended Table of court fees
  • Consequences of underpayment of appeal court fees under R. 229.4 RoP