AYLO Premium v DISH Technologies (CoA, 21 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_469/2024, APL_45142/2024, App_47039/2024), standing judge I. Simonsson of the Court of Appeal dismissed the application under Rule 9.1 RoP by which AYLO Premium, AYLO Billing and AYLO Freesites sought to supplement their submissions in their request for discretionary review of an order of the Mannheim Local Division of 22 July 2024, issued in the action brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV on EP 2 479 680.

Question

Does Rule 9.1 RoP give parties the right to file further submissions of their own motion in discretionary review proceedings?

Decision

No. Rule 9.1 RoP allows the Court to order procedural measures at any time, of its own motion or on a party’s reasoned request, but does not give parties a right to file submissions themselves (paragraphs 4 and 5). Rule 36 RoP requires further written pleadings to rest on a reasoned request and to be admitted by the judge. In proceedings under Rule 220.4 RoP, the request and, where the other party is heard, its response are the only submissions. Any further submission requires the judge’s leave (paragraph 6). There is no reason here to admit the submissions of 14 August 2024 (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party wishing to supplement its request for discretionary review must make a reasoned request under Rule 36 RoP and persuade the judge of its usefulness, as Rule 9.1 RoP confers no right of its own.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.1, 36 and 220.4

Related decisions

• AYLO Premium v DISH, Court of Appeal, 21 August 2024, dismissal of the request for discretionary review.

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.