Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, ORD_29899/2024, 22 May 2024)
| Date | 22 May 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_29006/2024 · ORD_29899/2024 |
| Parties | AUDI AG |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 22 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024, APL_25919/2024, App_29006/2024), the Court of Appeal (second panel) rejected Audi’s request to expedite its appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 23 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_514/2023), which had dismissed its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies (NST), proprietor of EP 1 875 683. An unreasoned request for expedition does not lead to the ordinary appeal time limits being shortened.
Question
Should the Court of Appeal expedite the appeal and shorten time limits (Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP) because Audi had already incurred significant costs, without security, for its statement of defence on the merits and those costs were still rising?
Decision
The request was admissible and NST did not need to be heard (paragraphs 1 and 2). The respondent has 15 days from service of the statement of grounds of appeal to lodge its statement of response (Rules 235 and 224.2(b) RoP), and Rule 9.3(b) RoP allows a time period to be shortened on a reasoned request (paragraphs 3 and 4). Audi, which filed the request with its statement of appeal 15 days after the impugned order was signed, did not explain why NST’s response was needed sooner. Having regard to NST’s interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, the court saw no reason to shorten that period (paragraphs 5 and 6). The request concerning later time limits was too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated at this stage (paragraph 7).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: relying on the cost of a defence conducted without security is not enough, a request for expedition must explain why each time limit should be shortened.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.3(b), 158.1, 224.2(b), 225(e) and 235
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
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
UPC_CFI_514/2023Parties
- claimantAUDI AG19 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande d'accélération de l'appel d'Audi est rejetée : rien ne justifie d'abréger le délai de réponse de quinze jours de NST, et la demande visant les délais ultérieurs est trop imprécise.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_514/2023).
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 1 875 683mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
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.