Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 17 September 2024)
| Date | 17 September 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.2 |
| Registry reference | APL_25919/2024 · ORD_48916/2024 |
| Parties | AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC |
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
In an order of 17 September 2024 in three joined appeals (UPC_CoA_217/2024, UPC_CoA_219/2024 and UPC_CoA_221/2024), the Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division’s orders of 23 April 2024 and ordered Network System Technologies to provide security for Audi’s costs of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000 and EUR 300,000, within three weeks of service. The order allocates between the parties the burden of substantiation regarding the finances of a patent enforcement company.
Question
Under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158, who must establish the claimant’s financial position?
Decision
The Court must determine whether the claimant’s financial position gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable (paragraph 7). Once the defendant has credibly presented its reasons, the claimant, which knows its own finances, must challenge them in a substantiated manner (paragraph 8). The Division had imposed too high a standard of proof. Absent any indication of other assets from NST, it should have been assumed that it had none (paragraph 10). The patent portfolio, largely expired or close to expiry and whose value would fall if the actions failed, was not adequate security (paragraphs 11 and 12). Security did not hinder NST’s access to justice (paragraphs 14 and 15), and the parties’ relative financial positions are not as such a criterion (paragraph 16). The amount was set at half the sums requested, as NST had proposed (paragraph 17).
Key points for practice
- Once the defendant’s reasons are credibly presented, the claimant must show its resources, failing which security will be ordered (paragraphs 8, 10 and 15).
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rule 158
- Case law cited
- No UPC decision is cited.
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
Parties
- defendantNetwork System Technologies LLC43 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAUDI AG19 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Appeal RoP220.2
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d’appel ordonne à Network System Technologies de constituer au profit d’Audi des garanties pour les frais de 500 000 euros au total, NST n’ayant pas justifié de ressources suffisantes.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- SYPOX v Topsoe (CFI, 27 August 2026) cites this decision
- KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 20 July 2026) cites this decision
- La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CoA, 1 June 2026) cites this decision
- Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics Parentco (CFI, 18 March 2026) cites this decision
- La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CFI, 13 March 2026) cites this decision
- Syntorr LP v Arthrex (CoA, UPC_CoA_889/2025, 18 February 2026) cites this decision
- Syntorr LP v Arthrex (CoA, UPC_CoA_890/2025, 18 February 2026) cites this decision
- IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 18 December 2025) cites this decision
- Align v Angelalign (CFI, 6 November 2025) cites this decision
- Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CoA, 30 October 2025) cites this decision
- BF exaQC v NVIDIA (CFI, 28 October 2025) cites this decision
- Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 4 September 2025) cites this decision
- Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 26 August 2025) cites this decision
- Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 29 July 2025) cites this decision
- Chint New Energy Technology v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025) cites this decision
- Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_18004/2025, 3 July 2025) cites this decision
- Headwater Research v Motorola Mobility (CFI, ORD_18005/2025, 3 July 2025) cites this decision
- Visibly v Easee (CFI, 30 May 2025) cites this decision
- JingAo Solar v Chint New Energy Technology (CFI, 9 May 2025) cites this decision
- Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 14 April 2025) cites this decision
- EOFLOW v Insulet (CFI, 11 April 2025) cites this decision
- JingAo Solar v Chint New Energy Technology (CFI, 2 April 2025) cites this decision
- Network System Technologies v AUDI (CoA, 19 February 2025) cites this decision
- Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 27 December 2024) cites this decision
- Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 27 December 2024) cites this decision
- Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CFI, 27 December 2024) cites this decision
- Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 27 December 2024) cites this decision
- NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard College (CFI, 17 December 2024) cites this decision
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 3 December 2024) cites this decision
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.