Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, 15 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 15 July 2026 common to the five appeals UPC_CoA_68/2026 to UPC_CoA_72/2026 against the Munich Local Division’s decisions of 11 March 2026 in the dispute between Network System Technologies LLC (NST) and Qualcomm, the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal ruled on the appeal court fees. She dismissed Qualcomm’s request for reimbursement and ordered NST to pay, within 14 days, outstanding fees of EUR 17,500, EUR 64,000 and EUR 17,500, failing which its appeals will be rejected as inadmissible by a decision by default (Rule 229.4). For any appellant, the value set at first instance governs the appeal fees.

Question

Which fee is due on an appeal concerning a counterclaim for revocation, and may an appellant pay on half the value because the Samsung companies are no longer parties?

Decision

For a counterclaim for revocation under Rule 220.1(a), the amended Table of court fees refers to the first-instance fee payable at the time the appeal is filed, raised by 10%: Qualcomm therefore owed EUR 29,150 and its request for reimbursement of EUR 7,150 was dismissed (paragraphs 13 and 14). Fees follow the value set by the Court of First Instance. A party cannot change it unilaterally and must challenge it in its grounds of appeal (paragraph 18). A lower value may be provisionally accepted for an apparent reason, the Court deciding finally only after hearing the respondent (paragraphs 19 and 20). The withdrawal of the action against Samsung did not justify a reduction, since the value had been set after that withdrawal (paragraph 21). NST, which had paid EUR 26,300 per appeal, must pay the balance (paragraphs 15, 22 and 24).

Key points for practice

• Challenging the value set at first instance is a matter for the grounds of appeal and does not allow a lower payment up front (paragraphs 18 and 22).
• On an appeal concerning a counterclaim for revocation, the basis is the first-instance fee applicable when the appeal is filed, raised by 10%, not the amount actually paid (paragraph 14).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 15, 26, 190, 220.1(a), 225, 226, 228, 229.4, 299, 333.1, 370.5 and 370.6

Table of court fees

Table V

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.