Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, ORD_36287/2024, 17 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024, APL_25919/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal allowed Audi AG, appellant against a Munich Local Division order of 23 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_514/2023, EP 1 875 683) refusing it security for costs against Network System Technologies, to file an additional pleading in reply to the respondent’s statement of response. The order holds that Rules 35 and 36 RoP apply on appeal.

Question

May a party on appeal seek leave to file a further written pleading under Rule 36 RoP, and on what conditions?

Decision

Yes. The request was admissible and the respondent did not need to be consulted (paragraphs 1 and 2). Rule 36 RoP allows a reasoned request for further written pleadings before the judge-rapporteur closes the written procedure (paragraph 3), as Rule 239.1 RoP makes Rules 101 to 110 RoP applicable on appeal, Rules 35 and 36 RoP apply as well (paragraph 4). The application, made under Rule 9.3 RoP, was treated as a reasoned request under Rule 36 RoP (paragraph 5). It was sufficiently reasoned: the appellant sought to correct, with written evidence, the respondent’s factual submissions on its market behaviour, had a sufficient interest in doing so, and the written procedure was the most suitable stage (paragraph 6). The respondent may reply by 1 July 2024, after which the written procedure is deemed closed (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: on appeal, an additional pleading will be admitted if it is reasoned, supported by evidence and requested before the written procedure closes.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(b), 35, 36, 101 to 110, 158.1 and 239.1

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.