UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 74/2026

May 11, 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 26, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-26
    Procedural onlyAppeal decisionRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    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.

    Legal issues:Discretionary review admissibility (R. 220.3 RoP)Security for costsManifest error standard for discretionary reviewBurden of proof for risk of cost recoveryFRAND objection to injunctive reliefLitigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement as alternative to security for costs
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-26Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-26Not public
Final Order2026-05-26Public
Receipt2026-05-22Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-22Not public
Document2026-05-22Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-15Not public
Order2026-05-15Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-13Not public
Receipt2026-05-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-11Not public
Fee2026-05-11Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-11Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-11Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-11Not public
Proof of payment2026-05-11Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-05-11Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The Munich LD erred in finding that Respondents had met the burden of demonstrating a risk of cost recovery

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoP

  • A 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 RoP

  • The 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