Motorola Mobility v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 6 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 6 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_489/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected Motorola Mobility’s request for discretionary review of the Munich Local Division’s order of 6 August 2024, which had refused it leave to change its claim under Rule 263 in its action against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH (EP 3 342 086) without granting leave to appeal. The order confirms how narrow the Rule 220.3 route is.

Question

Does the contention that an order refusing an amendment of the claim is wrong and insufficiently reasoned justify discretionary review?

Decision

No. Motorola argued that the Court of Appeal should clarify the standard for applying Rule 263 and ensure uniform practice (paragraph 2). The judge held that Motorola had not shown that review was necessary to ensure the consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure (point 8 of the Preamble) or any other objective of the procedure. The assertion that the order is incorrect and lacks an interpretation capable of generalisation is not sufficient (paragraph 4).

Key points for practice

• A request for discretionary review must show a need for consistency in UPC case law. Criticism of the individual decision is not enough.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Preamble, point 8, and Rules 220.3 and 263

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.