Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, ORD_36278/2024, 17 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_221/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal allowed Audi to lodge an additional written pleading in 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 sought to correct, with written evidence, the facts put forward by NST on its market behaviour. NST may respond by 1 July 2024, when the written procedure will be closed. Orders to the same effect were issued the same day in the parallel appeals UPC_CoA_217/2024 and UPC_CoA_219/2024.

Question

Can a party be allowed, on appeal, to lodge a pleading not provided for by the Rules of Procedure?

Decision

Rules 101 to 110 RoP on the interim procedure apply mutatis mutandis on appeal, and so do Rules 35 and 36 RoP (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: Audi showed an interest in correcting the facts with written evidence, and the written procedure is the most convenient stage for doing so (paragraph 6). There was no need to consult NST on the request (paragraph 2).

Key points for practice

• On appeal, a further written pleading may be allowed before the written procedure closes, on a reasoned request under Rule 36 RoP (paragraphs 3 to 6).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 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.