Advanced Standard Communication v XIAOMI (CoA, 19 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 19 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_67/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected the request for discretionary review and the application for suspensive effect lodged by Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) against the Munich Local Division’s order of 23 April 2026. That order had upheld, without granting leave to appeal, the judge-rapporteur’s order of 24 March 2026 requiring ASC to provide security for costs in its action for infringement of EP 3 016 464 against four Xiaomi companies (UPC_CFI_617/2024). The order also confirms that the standing judge may rule on suspensive effect.

Question

Was the security for costs order manifestly erroneous within the meaning of Rule 220.3, and may the standing judge alone decide on suspensive effect while the request for review is pending?

Decision

The request for review was admissible but rejected (paragraph 9): ASC challenged the merits of the order without showing a manifest error (paragraphs 10 and 11). The division did not manifestly err in finding that Xiaomi had shown a risk to the recovery of costs (paragraph 12), Xiaomi’s licence offer and the accompanying bank guarantee did not alter this, as ASC had not accepted the offer and the payment conditions were not met (paragraph 13). The division was entitled to reject security conditional on the absence of insurance, since ASC could have obtained such insurance before the impugned order (paragraph 14). While the request for review is pending, the case is assigned to the standing judge (Rule 220.4), who may decide on suspensive effect (paragraph 15), the application was moot once review was refused (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• The standing judge dealing with a request for discretionary review also decides any application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 (paragraph 15).
• Litigation insurance relied on to avoid security must be in place and put forward before the division rules (paragraph 14).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.3, 220.4 and 223

Case law cited

Motorola Mobility v Ericsson, Court of Appeal, 6 September 2024, Centripetal v Keysight, Court of Appeal, 1 September 2025, Syntorr v Arthrex, Court of Appeal, 18 February 2026

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.