| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34190/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed Audi's application to file additional written pleadings in the appeal proceedings correcting factual submissions by NST, applying Rules 35, 36 and 9.3(b) RoP mutatis mutandis to appeal proceedings. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34185/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal allowed Audi's application to file additional written pleadings to correct factual submissions by NST in Audi's appeal against the dismissal of its security-for-costs application. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34219/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request for leave to file an additional written pleading in its security-for-costs appeal, holding there was no genuine need to correct NST's factual submissions via an additional brief under R.36 and R.9.3(b) RoP. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34211/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal on a request by Volkswagen AG to file additional written pleadings (R.36, R.9.3(b) RoP) in appeal proceedings concerning security for costs. The Court found no need to allow additional pleadings in the circumstances of the case. |
| 2024-06-17 | UPC_APP_34189/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Volkswagen AG's application to file additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_218/2024) challenging a CFI order on security for costs in an infringement action by Network System Technologies LLC. Volkswagen sought to respond to certain facts in NST's statement of response. The Court held that R. 239.1 RoP makes R. 35 and R. 36 RoP applicable in appeal proceedings mutatis mutandis but found no sufficient grounds for allowing additional pleadings in the circumstances. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_31209/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (second panel) addressed Nera Innovations' request for partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi defendants, establishing principles on when partial withdrawal of an appeal is permissible under R. 265 RoP and whether the other parties have legitimate interests in a full decision. |
| 2024-06-04 | UPC_APP_30470/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (4 June 2024) rejected Daedalus Prime LLC's application to partially withdraw its appeal as against Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE only. The CoA held that those respondents had been served, had responded to the appeal, and had a legitimate interest in having the appeal adjudicated in relation to them, so partial withdrawal would impermissibly deprive them of their right to be heard. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29007/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Audi AG's request to expedite its appeal against the dismissal of an application for security for costs in the NST v. Audi infringement action, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29005/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP, finding the request too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_29006/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Dismissed | The UPC Court of Appeal denied Audi AG's request to expedite the appeal against the Munich Local Division's refusal to order security for costs from Network System Technologies LLC in infringement proceedings concerning EP1875683, finding the request too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated. |
| 2024-05-22 | UPC_APP_28997/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal denied Volkswagen's request to expedite its appeal against a first-instance order dismissing its application for security for costs, finding the request too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated. No expedition was granted. |
| 2024-05-01 | UPC_APP_23543/2024 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal (Second Panel) dismissed Daedalus Prime LLC's request for panel review of an order refusing extension of time for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal. The panel found no grounds to deviate from the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the desire to present a thorough analysis or obtain a legal opinion does not justify extension. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_17551/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal setting out the time period for filing a Statement of appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP where leave to appeal is granted in the impugned order itself. The Court held that the 15-day period runs from service of the order containing the grant of leave (whether in the impugned order itself or in a separate order). The appeal arises from Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG challenging rejection of a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 876 490 brought by Toyota Motor Europe. |
| 2024-04-09 | UPC_APP_17640/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal issued an order clarifying the date of service for appeal documents, establishing that service rules applicable at first instance continue to apply at the appeal level in proceedings involving Panasonic and the Xiaomi group entities. |
| 2024-04-09 | UPC_APP_17640/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Rian Kalden) clarified the date of service of the Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal in the proceedings between Panasonic and Xiaomi. The Court held that, in appeal proceedings, service rules (Rules 270-279 RoP) apply mutatis mutandis. Where R.271.1 RoP applied at first instance (electronic address provided or representative accepted service), further service—including in appeal proceedings—must be effected through the UPC CMS. The headnote confirms that appeal service follows the same electronic system as first-instance service. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 2) on an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. for restriction of access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. Curio sought to limit access to an unredacted document (CR-3) in the context of a pending language-change appeal. The Court held that a first-instance Rule 262A order restricting access to certain documents retains its force during appeal proceedings even if not directly challenged on appeal, and continues to govern access until the conclusion of the entire proceedings. Access to the confidential document was maintained restricted to specified persons. |
| 2024-03-28 | UPC_APP_12137/2024 | Court of Appeal | — | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that the confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 11 March 2024 under R. 262A RoP (restricting access to document CR-3) continues to apply in the appeal proceedings, making Curio Bioscience's separate request for a confidentiality protection order in the appeal superfluous. The existing order covers 'outside these proceedings' broadly, including the appeal. No new order needed. |
| 2024-02-26 | ORD_10103/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled that AIM Sport's appeal (lodged as APL_596892/2023) against a first-instance decision dismissing the actions due to patent opt-out was filed out of the two-month time limit under R.220.1(c) RoP and was therefore inadmissible. |