Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 9 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

This entry corresponds to appeal UPC_CoA_69/2026, decided by the order of 9 October 2026 in which the Court of Appeal rules on applications for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320. The Court refuses to re-establish Network System Technologies’ right to appeal, within fifteen days, the orders rejecting its applications for the production of evidence, and refuses to treat the appeals lodged on 13 July 2026 as filed in time.

Facts and procedure

Network System Technologies had brought infringement actions against the Qualcomm companies before the Munich Local Division, together with applications for the production of evidence under Rule 190, the defendants seeking dismissal and counterclaiming for revocation. By three decisions of 11 March 2026 the Local Division dismissed the infringement actions, revoked one of the patents for France and Germany and rejected the applications for the production of evidence in the grounds, without repeating them in the operative part. Appeals on the merits were lodged on 11 May 2026 and the statements of grounds filed on 13 July 2026. By order of 17 August 2026 the Court of Appeal held the appeals against the rejection of the evidence applications inadmissible as out of time under Rule 224.1(b). On 21 August 2026 the claimant applied for re-establishment of rights.

The applicable law

The order applies Rule 320 on re-establishment of rights, Rule 220.1(c) opening an appeal against orders, and Rule 224.1(b) which confines that appeal to fifteen days from service.

Question

Does the fact that the rejection of an application for the production of evidence appears in the grounds, rather than in the operative part or the requests section, and without any information on the right of appeal, justify re-establishment of rights?

Decision

No. It was clear, and indeed clear to the claimant, that the applications for the production of evidence had been rejected in the grounds of the impugned decisions. That rejection is an order within the meaning of Rule 220.1(c) and therefore had to be appealed within fifteen days of service. The absence of any reference in the operative part and in the requests section, the lack of the title “order” and the missing appeal information are a mere obvious slip and do not amount to exceptional circumstances making the error excusable. Re-establishment is refused and the appeals lodged on 13 July 2026 are not treated as filed in time. As the order does not close an action, no cost decision is required at this stage.

Key points for practice

• The rejection of an application for the production of evidence appearing only in the grounds is an appealable order, with time running from service of the decision.
• The absence of a mention in the operative part or of appeal information does not extend the time limit and does not make the error excusable.
• Re-establishment requires exceptional circumstances, which a debatable reading of the structure of the decision does not provide.
• Ancillary rejections must therefore be appealed within fifteen days, without waiting for the appeal on the merits.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 190, 220.1(c), 224.1(b) and 320

Related decisions

• Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, 9 October 2026), same order, entry for appeal 71/2026.
• Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, 9 October 2026), same order, entry for appeal 72/2026.

Only the official text is authentic.