UPC CoA 74/2026
May 11, 2026·EP3016464 SEP · METHOD FOR MEASURING DISCOVERY SIGNAL, BASE STATION, AND TERMINAL
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Respondents
- Motorola Mobility LLCOperating co.
- Motorola Mobility International Sales LLCOperating co.
- Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbHOperating co.
- Motorola Mobility Germany GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Tobias Wuttke-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Language
- English
- First decided
- May 26, 2026
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Emmanuel Gougé | Locked |
At the UPC: Advanced Standard Communication LLC (8 cases)·Motorola Group (41 cases)
This dispute contains 2 other proceedings
5 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CoA 67/2026·UPC CFI 1340/2026·UPC CFI 1321/2025·UPC CFI 398/2025·UPC CFI 617/2024
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-05-26Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)Public
Summary: The Court of Appeal rejected ASC's request for a discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Munich Local Division's order requiring ASC to provide security for costs. The Court found that ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that it raised a fundamental question of law.
Show the legal issues (6)
- Discretionary review admissibility (R. 220.3 RoP)
- Security for costs
- Manifest error standard for discretionary review
- Burden of proof for risk of cost recovery
- FRAND objection to injunctive relief
- Litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement as alternative to security for costs
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-05-26 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-05-26 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2026-05-26 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-05-22 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-05-22 | Not public |
| Document | 2026-05-22 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-05-15 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-05-15 | Public |
| Publication | 2026-05-13 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-05-11 | Not public |
Respondents met the burden of presenting facts and evidence to support their assertion of a risk of cost recovery, including financial information relating to ASC's financial situation
RespondentLegal basis: R. 158 RoP; security for costs framework
The Munich LD erred in finding that Respondents had met the burden of demonstrating a risk of cost recovery
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoPA bank guarantee provided on 30 January 2026 in separate proceedings negated the risk of cost recovery found by the Munich LD
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoPThe Munich LD erred in not considering the possibility for ASC to provide secured litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer as an alternative to security for costs
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoP