Network System Technologies v Volkswagen (CoA, 19 February 2025)
| Date | 19 February 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_2709/2025 · ORD_8348/2025 |
| Parties | 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
By an order of 19 February 2025 in cases UPC_CoA_218/2024, UPC_CoA_220/2024 and UPC_CoA_222/2024, Rian Kalden, presiding judge of panel 2 of the Court of Appeal and judge rapporteur, ordered the full return of the security for costs deposited by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) in its infringement actions against Volkswagen AG. The order fills a gap in the Rules of Procedure by applying Rule 352.2 by analogy.
Question
May security for costs ordered under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 be released after the withdrawal of the actions in which it was ordered, and on what basis?
Decision
By orders of 17 September 2024, the Court of Appeal had set aside the Munich Local Division’s refusals and ordered NTS to provide security totalling EUR 500,000 across the three cases, deposited on 1 October 2024 (paragraphs 1 to 3). After the local division allowed the withdrawals and closed the proceedings, NTS applied for the return of the security (paragraphs 4 and 5). The court noted that Rule 352.2, which allows security to be released on a party’s application, concerns security for enforcement, but applied it by analogy, the withdrawal of the actions justifying release (paragraph 6). The amounts were returned in full.
Key points for practice
- Rule 352.2 applies by analogy to security for costs: a party that has withdrawn may obtain its return on application.
- The application is made to the court that ordered the security, here the Court of Appeal.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 158.1 and 352.2
- Case law cited
- No UPC decision is cited, apart from the Court of Appeal’s own earlier orders of 17 September 2024 in the same cases.
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
- claimantNetwork System Technologies LLC43 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d'appel ordonne la restitution intégrale des garanties pour frais versées par NTS, en appliquant par analogie la règle 352.2 après le désistement des actions contre Volkswagen.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal 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.