Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, ORD_29918/2024, 22 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_221/2024), the Court of Appeal rejected Audi’s request to expedite its appeal against the Munich Local Division’s refusal to order Network System Technologies (NST) to provide security for legal costs (EP 1 552 669). Audi argued that its defence costs were mounting without security. Orders to the same effect were issued the same day in appeals UPC_CoA_217/2024 and UPC_CoA_219/2024.

Question

On what conditions may the Court of Appeal expedite an appeal and shorten the respondent’s time limits under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP?

Decision

Rule 9.3(b) RoP allows any time period to be shortened on a reasoned request (paragraph 4). Audi did not explain why it would have a particular interest in shortening the 15-day period for NST’s statement of response (Rules 235 and 224.2(b) RoP), in view of NST’s interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, there was no ground for doing so (paragraphs 3, 5 and 6). The request concerning future time periods was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• A request for expedition must set out the particular interest justifying a shorter period for the other side. A general reference to mounting costs is not enough (paragraphs 6 and 7).

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.