Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, 3 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 July 2025, the Court of Appeal rejects both Network System Technologies’ (NST) appeal and Qualcomm’s cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 26 February 2025, given in three infringement actions concerning three patents (appeals UPC_CoA_221/2025 to 223/2025 and UPC_CoA_355/2025 to 357/2025). A single US attorney of NST retains access to Qualcomm’s confidential information. The order sets a workable test for groups litigating in parallel in the United States.

Question

How many of a party’s US attorneys may access the other side’s confidential information under Rule 262A?

Decision

The number of persons granted access must not exceed what is necessary to secure the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Rule 262A.6, paragraphs 16 and 17). Access turns on the person’s role, the relevance of the information to that role and trustworthiness. A party is free to choose its counsel (paragraph 18), and one US attorney acting as the link with the UPC representatives is necessary (paragraphs 19 and 20). NST failed to show that a second was needed (paragraphs 21 to 23). Involvement in parallel US litigation does not imply cross-use, since access is confined to these proceedings (paragraph 24). The argument based on the second attorney’s engineering background, raised for the first time on appeal, is disregarded (Rule 222.2, paragraph 25), NST’s technical expert already having access (paragraphs 26 and 27).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party seeking access for several foreign counsel must justify each one’s distinct role, one liaison counsel will ordinarily be held sufficient.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 222.2, 233 and 262A

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025.

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.