Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CFI, ORD_26324/2024, 8 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_513/2023, ACT_597691/2023), the Munich Local Division largely dismissed the preliminary objections (Rule 19 RoP) and the applications to dismiss as manifestly unfounded (Rule 361 RoP) lodged by Volkswagen, Audi, Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland against Network System Technologies’ (NST) infringement action on EP 1 552 669. A withdrawal of an opt-out lodged by a representative entered on the Art. 48 UPCA list is valid without proof of mandate.

Question

Must a withdrawal of an opt-out lodged by a representative under Art. 48 UPCA be accompanied by a mandate, and must the other objections (standing, specificity of the allegations, jurisdiction over UK damages and over claims against Texas Instruments) be decided as preliminary issues?

Decision

The withdrawal was lodged on 20 December 2023 by a representative listed since 21 March 2023, Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP treats such a person differently from other filers, who alone must attach a mandate under Rule 5.3(b)(ii) RoP, so the withdrawal took effect on its entry in the Register. NST establishes standing through the assignment by Koninklijke Philips of 24 June 2022, which also covers the right to sue for past infringement. A detailed infringement read for a single example product is enough at this stage. The jurisdictional objections are deferred to the main proceedings (Rule 20.2 RoP), since validity is challenged by counterclaims and a revocation action before the Central Division and efficient case management (Art. 41.3 UPCA) calls for deferral. The Rule 361 applications are dismissed and leave to appeal is granted for the dismissed part.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an opt-out withdrawal signed by an Art. 48 representative is not undermined by the absence of a mandate, and a jurisdictional objection that depends on validity and infringement will usually be deferred to the merits.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 41(3), 48, 73(2)(b)(ii), 83(3) and 83(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 5.3(b), 5.7, 19, 20.2, 21.1, 125, 220.2, 224.1(b), 361 and 363.2

Related decisions

• Network System v Texas Instruments Incorporated, 8 May 2024, parallel order (UPC_CFI_514/2023, EP 1 875 683).
• AUDI AG v Network System, 8 May 2024, parallel order (UPC_CFI_515/2023, EP 1 552 399).
• Volkswagen AG, 22 May 2024, Court of Appeal refusing to expedite the appeal on security for costs in the same action.

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.