Neo Wireless v Toyota Motor Europe (CoA, 11 April 2024)

Date	11 April 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_17551/2024 · ORD_19643/2024
Parties	Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG v. Toyota Motor Europe

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 11 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_79/2024, APL_9578/2024, App_17551/2024), the Court of Appeal (Kalden, presiding and judge-rapporteur, Simonsson, Rombach) rejected Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA’s request for a decision by default against the appeal of Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG. That appeal is directed at the order of 9 February 2024 in which the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division dismissed Neo’s preliminary objection to jurisdiction based on its opt-out, in the revocation action against EP 3 876 490. The order clarifies when the time limit for appeal starts where leave is granted by a separate decision.

Question

Where leave to appeal a procedural order is granted in a separate decision, does the 15-day period under Rule 224.1(b) RoP run from service of the impugned order or from service of the decision granting leave?

Decision

The request is rejected. The first ground rests on a misreading of the facts: the correction requested by the Registry was lodged on 26 March 2024, within the 14-day period (paragraphs 9 to 11). On the second, Rule 220.2 RoP allows a procedural order to be appealed together with the final decision or, with leave, within 15 days of service of the decision granting leave (paragraphs 12 to 14). Leave may be granted in the impugned order itself, in which case time runs from its service, or in a separate decision issued within 15 days of the order (Rule 220.3 RoP), in which case time runs from service of that decision (paragraphs 15 to 17). Leave having been granted on 23 February 2024, the statement of appeal of 8 March 2024 was in time (paragraphs 18 and 19).

Key points for practice

Practical point: where leave to appeal is granted by a separate decision, the 15-day period runs from service of that decision, not of the impugned order.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 220.2, 220.3, 224.1(b), 229.2(a), 229.4, 229.5, 355.1 and 357.3

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

defendantToyota Motor Europe3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantNeo Wireless GmbH & Co KGFollow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de décision par défaut de Toyota est rejetée : la régularisation a été faite à temps et le délai d'appel courait de la signification de la décision distincte d'autorisation.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 876 490 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 876 490`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Toyota Motor Europe v Neo Wireless (CFI, 31 July 2025) · Neo Wireless v Toyota Motor Europe (CoA, 4 June 2024) · Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v Neo Wireless (CFI, 25 April 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.