| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CFI_355/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting the Claimant's request for simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing scheduled for 17-18 December 2024, issued pursuant to Rule 109.1 RoP. |
| 2024-11-28 | UPC_CoA_490/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed the appeal against a provisional measures order, ruling on the appellant's classification as a micro-enterprise or small enterprise for the purposes of court fee reductions. The matter concerned a default decision and the appellant's failure to demonstrate eligibility for the reduced fee rate. |
| 2024-11-27 | APL_59329/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order on a request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a first-instance order requiring TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 (R. 158 RoP), in which leave to appeal had been refused. The Court of Appeal examined whether a judge-rapporteur acting alone has competence to issue a security-for-costs order under R. 158 RoP and to refuse leave to appeal, or whether the full panel is required. The order resulted in a further procedural step inviting party submissions on this competence question. |
| 2024-11-27 | UPC_CFI_308/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | The Central Division Paris revoked European patent EP 3 456 214 (relating to a vaporizer/e-cigarette device) in its entirety. The patent was found to lack inventive step over the prior art. All auxiliary requests for partial maintenance were rejected as either unsubstantiated or unreasonable in number. The defendant (patent proprietor VMR Products LLC) was ordered to bear the litigation costs. |
| 2024-11-26 | ACT_592899/2023 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order following the interim conference in C-KORE Systems Limited v Novawell (UPC_CFI_468/2023, EP 2 265 793). The order resolves several procedural disputes: (1) declined to reject exhibit 57 of C-KORE's unredacted statement; (2) ruled on witness requests from Novawell; (3) addressed interpretation and language requests; and (4) confirmed the regularity of previously conducted saisie (seizure) operations, noting that the court-appointed expert was appropriately independent. |
| 2024-11-25 | ACT_43563/2024 | Munich LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Local Division Munich denied Häfele's application for provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of a patent relating to furniture fittings, finding that serious doubts about patent validity (inventive step, prior art D8) outweighed the likelihood of success and that the balance of interests did not favour an injunction. |
| 2024-11-25 | UPC_CFI_395/2023 | Paris LD | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Paris Local Division dated 25 November 2024 on DexCom's application (under R. 334(e) and R. 336 RoP) requesting the court to allow post-hearing submissions regarding a Munich Regional Court decision of 6 November 2024 on EP 2 939 158 (parent patent of EP 3 831 282 in suit). The court had closed the oral hearing on 30 October 2024. DexCom argued the Munich decision finding infringement by Abbott of the parent patent's claim 1 was relevant. Abbott argued the application was inadmissible. The order addresses admissibility of supplemental submissions after closure of hearing under Chapter 8 RoP case management provisions. |
| 2024-11-22 | ACT_549536/2023 | The Hague LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Hague Local Division found Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) infringed Plant-e's EP 2 137 782 B1 by equivalence (bioelectrical energy from plant photosynthesis), granted an injunction, ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and required a customer notice. |
| 2024-11-22 | ACT_545551/2023 | Mannheim LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Mannheim Local Division found that Guangdong OPPO and OROPE Germany infringed Panasonic's EP 2 568 724 (radio communication patent), granted injunction, recall and other relief, while dismissing the invalidity counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim. |
| 2024-11-22 | ACT_40442/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI denied | The Milan Local Division dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. concerning EP4201327 (insulin pump technology), finding the application inadmissible as the auxiliary requests to amend the patent are not permissible in provisional measures proceedings, and also dismissing Menarini's request for security for costs. |
| 2024-11-22 | UPC_CFI_380/2024 | Milan CD | Application for provisional measures | — | PI denied | The Milan Central Division rejected Insulet Corporation's application for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327 (insulin pump). The Court held that the applicant had not established with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid (particularly claim 1 which appeared to lack novelty or inventive step over the prior art). The auxiliary request to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP was inadmissible in provisional measures proceedings given the requirement for expediency and the adversarial principle. Insulet was ordered to bear the costs; value in dispute EUR 2,500,000; cost ceiling EUR 400,000. |
| 2024-11-22 | UPC_CFI_239/2023 | The Hague LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Infringed | The Hague Local Division held that the patent is valid and infringed by equivalence. The Court ordered Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) to cease and desist from infringing EP 2 137 782 by applying the patented method or supplying Bioo Panels, Bioo Benches, or Bioo products in Benelux, France, Germany, and Italy. The Court rejected the counterclaim for revocation. The Court also ordered a customer notification letter/website publication. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_50205/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed the conditions for staying infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the EPO under Art. 33(10) UPCA and R.295(a) RoP. The Court held that a stay may be ordered where a rapid decision by the EPO Opposition Division can be expected, even if an appeal against that decision is likely. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_44633/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_456/2024, 21 November 2024) dismissing OrthoApnea's appeal against a first-instance order permitting the claimant to raise a doctrine-of-equivalents argument. The CoA held: not every new argument is an amendment of the case requiring leave under R. 263 RoP; raising the doctrine of equivalents does not change the nature or scope of the infringement dispute when the same patent and product remain at issue; admissibility of new arguments depends on circumstances and procedural fairness. |
| 2024-11-21 | APL_44633/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | Court of Appeal declared the appeal against the primary first-instance order inadmissible and rejected the appeal against the review order. The CoA clarified the rules on amendment of a case versus new arguments: not every new argument constitutes an amendment of case requiring leave under R.263 RoP; the nature or scope of the dispute must change. The anonymised respondent's claims relating to admissibility of new arguments were assessed. The case involves a patent infringement action before a Dutch-language division. |
| 2024-11-20 | UPC_CFI_368/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Valeo Electrification's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the preliminary injunction order of 31 October 2024 against Magna PT entities concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. The rectification related to the product scope and spare-parts exception included in the order. The court issued a corrected operative part clarifying the terms of the injunction. |
| 2024-11-15 | ACT_459987/2023 | Munich LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Munich Local Division full merits decision finding that Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and Meril GmbH infringed Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's patent EP 3 646 825 (a heart valve technology patent). The court ordered a permanent injunction to cease and desist from the infringing acts (transcatheter heart valve products) across all UPC contracting states where the patent has effect, recall of infringing products from commercial channels (excluding devices already scheduled for patient implantation by 15 November 2024), destruction of infringing stock, disclosure of information about distribution and quantities, publication of the decision, and an obligation to pay damages (quantum to be determined separately). The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the patent being upheld as valid. Costs were addressed separately. |
| 2024-11-13 | UPC_CFI_358/2023 | Paris LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Final decision on the merits (in French) in the infringement action by Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP against LAMA France concerning inkjet printer cartridge technology. The Paris Local Division found that LAMA France infringed the patent in suit (a fluid ejection device patent). The court ordered: (I) patent maintained as valid (invalidity counterclaim rejected); (II) injunction against infringing cartridges; (III) corrective measures including recall from distribution channels and destruction of infringing stock; (IV) disclosure of sales information for damages calculation; (V) costs split equally between parties (50/50); provisional damages on costs rejected. Infringement established without requiring prior notice of the patent to the defendant. |
| 2024-11-12 | APL_596007/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal ruled on the interpretation of the term 'action' in Article 83 UPCA regarding jurisdiction and withdrawal of opt-outs during the transitional period. The Court held that the sentence concerning national court actions in Art. 83(4) UPCA refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime. |
| 2024-11-05 | ACT_571669/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | Paris Central Division (Section 1) revoked European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 (Juul Labs - vaping device cartridge) in full, with effect for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The Court found the patent invalid for added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) / Art. 123(2) EPC). All of Juul Labs' auxiliary requests to amend the patent were rejected. Juul Labs ordered to bear costs. |
| 2024-11-05 | ACT_571801/2023 | Paris CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Patent maintained | Paris Central Division (Section 1) dismissed NJOY's revocation action against EP 3 504 991 B1 (Juul Labs - vaping device cartridge). The Court found the patent valid, holding that novelty and inventive step requirements were met. NJOY as the unsuccessful party was ordered to bear Juul Labs' costs. |
| 2024-11-05 | UPC_CFI_643/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Milan Local Division granted Cardo Systems' application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction and seizure) against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. without hearing the respondents (ex parte). The court ordered: (1) service by bailiff at EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan; (2) seizure and description of infringing products; (3) institution of merits proceedings within 31 days on pain of revocation. Costs to be settled in the merits proceedings. |
| 2024-11-05 | UPC_CFI_649/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Milan Local Division granted Pirelli an ex-parte order for seizure of motorcycle tyres allegedly infringing EP 3 519 207 B1 exhibited by Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) at the EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan. |
| 2024-11-05 | UPC_CFI_649/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Milan Local Division (5 November 2024) granted an ex parte preliminary seizure order against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd at the EICMA 2024 tyre exhibition in Milan. The order authorised seizure of infringing tyres at the defendants' exhibition stand and was immediately enforceable. Defendants were required to cancel orders for the infringing products. Main proceedings must be initiated within 31 calendar days or 20 working days. |
| 2024-11-05 | UPC_CFI_650/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | The Milan Local Division granted Pirelli an ex-parte provisional measure ordering seizure of infringing motorcycle tyres (EP 2 519 412 B1) exhibited by Tianjin Kingtyre and Kingtyre Deutschland at the EICMA 2024 international motorcycle fair in Milan, with a review right for the defendants within 30 days. |
| 2024-11-05 | UPC_CFI_650/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Milan Local Division (5 November 2024) granted an ex parte seizure and protective order against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co. Ltd and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH at the EICMA 2024 tyre fair in Milan. Order was served by bailiff at the exhibition and immediately enforceable. Defendants may seek review within 30 days. Main proceedings must commence within 31 calendar days. |
| 2024-11-04 | UPC_CFI_241/2023 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Permanent injunction | Decision on the merits by the Milan Local Division (full panel) in an infringement action by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers (India) concerning a texturing/structuring machine exhibited at ITMA 2023. The defendant did not contest infringement or validity. The court refused to stay proceedings pending parallel revocation proceedings against the same patent by a different defendant. The court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting sale and promotion of the infringing machine in Italy and Germany, imposed a penalty of EUR 12,000 per breach payable to the court, awarded provisional damages of EUR 15,000, set the case value at EUR 750,000, and ordered Bhagat to bear 80% of costs (with 20% offset for Oerlikon's behavior during settlement negotiations). |
| 2024-11-04 | UPC_CFI_241/2023 | Milan LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | Milan Local Division found that Bhagat Textile Engineers infringed EP 2 145 848 by exhibiting its texturing machine at ITMA fair in June 2023. The Court issued a permanent injunction against sales in Italy and Germany, imposed a penalty of EUR 12,000 per violation, and ordered provisional damages of EUR 15,000. Costs were 80% charged to Bhagat, 20% compensated between parties. |
| 2024-10-31 | ACT_580849/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Permanent injunction | The Düsseldorf Local Division found that SodaStream's patent EP 1 793 917 was infringed by Aarke AB and issued an injunction along with ancillary relief. The defendant was ordered to bear the full costs of the litigation; the value in dispute was set at EUR 3,000,000. |
| 2024-10-31 | ACT_37931/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | Preliminary injunction | PI granted | Order from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_347/2024) granting Valeo Electrification's application for provisional measures against Magna PT entities concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing, offering, marketing, using or importing the infringing automotive electrification products. Penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation were ordered. The injunction was conditional on Valeo providing security of EUR 2,500,000. The Court addressed issues of patent proprietorship (rebuttable presumption), urgency, and validity, finding the patent more likely than not valid. |
| 2024-10-31 | UPC_CFI_368/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application for provisional measures | — | PI granted | The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Valeo Electrification a preliminary injunction against Magna PT entities prohibiting them from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing certain electric motor generators (challenged embodiment I) and the 7HDT400 gearbox assembled with those generators (challenged embodiment II) in Germany and France, concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. A temporary exception was granted for BMW 2 Series Active Tourer and Mini Countryman, conditional on defendants providing security of EUR 500,000 by 21 November 2024. Recurring penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation were imposed. Defendants were ordered to pay EUR 14,700 provisionally in costs. The injunction was made enforceable upon provision by the applicant of a EUR 2,500,000 bank guarantee. |
| 2024-10-29 | UPC_APP_10381/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division rejected Sioen NV's preliminary objection in the patent infringement action brought by TEXPORT, finding that parallel Belgian proceedings (for non-infringement declaration regarding the Belgian part of the patent) did not preclude UPC jurisdiction over infringements in Latvia and Portugal under Arts. 29–31 of Brussels I Recast. |
| 2024-10-29 | ACT_953/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Infringement Action | Procedural | Procedural only | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division issued a post-interim-conference order in infringement proceedings, setting the value of the action at EUR 500,000, closing the written procedure, partially referring a preliminary objection issue to main proceedings, and allowing certain expert evidence previously contested by the defendant. |
| 2024-10-22 | UPC_CFI_1/2023 | Munich CD | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Procedural only | Munich Central Division granted Dehns' (a UPC representative firm) request for access to written pleadings and evidence in the concluded Sanofi v. Amgen revocation proceedings under R.262.1(b) RoP. The Court found that since proceedings had concluded, the balance of interests normally favours granting access to third parties with a legitimate general interest. |
| 2024-10-20 | UPC_CFI_471/2023 | Mannheim LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order on a request for disclosure of information about the configuration and coding scheme of video files (Rule 191 RoP). The court declined to order disclosure at this stage due to the uncertain validity of the patent, finding it would be disproportionate to require defendants to provide the requested technical information before validity is established. |
| 2024-10-17 | ACT_551180/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Revocation merits | Revoked | The Munich Section of the Central Division revoked European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 (owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College) in its entirety, with effect in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited. The Court found that the main claim lacked novelty over the prior art disclosure 'Göransson', and that all eight auxiliary requests (AR1–8) also lacked inventive step over Göransson. Harvard's auxiliary requests to amend the patent were all rejected. Harvard as the unsuccessful party must bear NanoString's legal costs. |
| 2024-10-15 | UPC_CoA_570/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order refusing to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP on account of alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The CoA held that the manifestly inadmissible threshold under Rule 361 RoP requires clear-cut cases without in-depth analysis, and that the CFI's refusal to find manifest inadmissibility was not an appropriate case for discretionary review. |
| 2024-10-14 | UPC_CFI_327/2024 | The Hague LD | Procedural Order | — | Procedural only | Order from The Hague Local Division dated 14 October 2024 partially granting Winnow Solutions Limited's request to produce evidence under R. 190 RoP in its infringement action against Orbisk B.V. The court found a prima facie case of infringement of EP 3 198 245 B1 and ordered Orbisk to produce certain documents, but limited the scope as the original request was too broad. Non-infringement and invalidity arguments were reserved for full panel evaluation. Orbisk was granted a period to file a R. 262A motion and access to the produced documents was restricted to Winnow's legal representatives. |
| 2024-10-11 | UPC_CFI_193/2024 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Infringed | Default judgment granted against ARCORA International GmbH for infringement of EP 3 760 094 B1 (floor cleaning device patent). ARCORA was ordered to cease and desist from offering and placing the infringing product on the market, and to provide accounting information. Partial withdrawal of claims permitted. ARCORA bears 90% of costs, i-mop 10%. |
| 2024-10-10 | ACT_579244/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | Infringement merits | Infringed | The Local Division Düsseldorf found that expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH directly infringed EP 3 926 698 B1 (relating to lighting technology) owned by Seoul Viosys, dismissed the revocation counterclaim filed only by one defendant, and ordered the defendants to cease, render accounts, and pay damages, without requiring security for enforcement. |
| 2024-10-10 | UPC_CFI_483/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | — | Revoked | Düsseldorf Local Division revoked EP 3 223 320 for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands based on the counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent was invalid due to added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC). The infringement action was dismissed as a result. Seoul Viosys (claimant) was ordered to bear all costs. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_586/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | — | Dismissed | Court of Appeal (Standing Judge) dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order for security for costs as inadmissible. The court held that Suinno had not first requested the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal, which is a prerequisite before seeking discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The fact that the CFI order failed to indicate the right to appeal under Rule 158.3 RoP did not change this: the omission could not be read as an implied grant of leave. |
| 2024-10-09 | UPC_CoA_584/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected EOFlow's request for expedition of the appeal (in an appeal concerning refusal to join two provisional measures cases against different defendants). The court found that EOFlow had failed to act with sufficient urgency and by filing its appeal and expedition request at an unnecessarily late stage had insufficiently taken into account the interests of Insulet, making it impossible to expedite the appeal without prejudicing Insulet's response time. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | Order from the Court of Appeal dated 4 October 2024 on costs following Meril's submission of an undertaking (Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung) to Edwards Lifesciences, which resulted in dismissal of the preliminary injunction action. The CoA held that, where a defendant undertakes to comply with the claimant's requests after proceedings have commenced, the claimant is generally to be regarded as the prevailing party under Art. 69(1) UPCA, without any need to examine the merits at the time of the undertaking. The undertaking itself implies that the claimant's requests were satisfied. Accordingly, Meril was ordered to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| 2024-10-04 | UPC_CoA_2/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Costs only | The Court of Appeal dismissed Meril's appeal against the Munich Local Division's costs order following a cease-and-desist undertaking by Meril. The Court held that Edwards was the successful party because Meril's cease-and-desist undertaking fulfilled the substance of Edwards' requests after proceedings commenced. Where a defendant gives a cease-and-desist undertaking during proceedings, the claimant is generally the successful party for costs purposes, and there is no need to examine admissibility and merits at the time of the undertaking. |
| 2024-10-02 | UPC_CFI_54/2024 | Munich LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order on Samsung Electronics entities' application for security for costs (Rule 158 RoP) against Claimant Headwater Research LLC, a US-based patent assertion entity. Applying the CoA standard that the claimant's financial position must give rise to legitimate and real concern about recoverability of a potential cost order, the court assessed whether EUR 200,000 security was appropriate. |
| 2024-10-02 | UPC_CFI_498/2023 | Munich LD | Generic Order | — | Procedural only | Procedural order in NEC v TCL infringement action, granting an application for intervention by a third party. The court set out procedural arrangements for the intervener to participate via the claimant's representatives in the case management system. |
| 2024-10-01 | UPC_CFI_400/2024 | Milan LD | Application for provisional measures | Procedural | Procedural only | The Milan Local Division denied EOFLOW CO LTD's application to intervene as a third party in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini under R.313 RoP, holding that efficiency of the proceedings and other balancing considerations weighed against admitting the intervention. |
| 2024-09-30 | APL_52763/2024 | Court of Appeal | Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (single judge) denied Xiaomi's request for discretionary review of three first-instance orders concerning the extension of a time limit under R.29(d) RoP for filing a rejoinder in three parallel infringement proceedings brought by Panasonic before the Local Division Mannheim. |
| 2024-09-27 | UPC_CoA_217/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 27 September 2024 on Audi AG's request for rectification under R. 353 RoP of a prior CoA order (dated 17 September 2024) requiring Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000 and EUR 300,000 in three appeal proceedings. Audi requested that the rectified order also include the notification under R. 158.4 RoP that default judgment may follow if NST fails to provide the security within three weeks. The CoA granted this request, finding the omission of the R. 158.4 notification was an obvious slip, as that notification is mandatory. |