Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 9 October 2026)

Date	9 October 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal
Case number(s)	UPC_CoA_71/2026;UPC_CoA_69/2026;UPC_CoA_72/2026;UPC_CoA_68/2026
Registry reference	UPC-COA-0000071/2026
Parties	Network System Technologies LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Language	English

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

15 July 2026 : Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 15 July 2026) UPC-COA-0000071/2026
17 August 2026 : Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 17 August 2026) UPC-COA-0000071/2026
22 October 2026 : Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 22 October 2026) UPC-COA-0000071/2026
27 October 2026 : Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 27 October 2026) UPC-COA-0000071/2026

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 17 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 9 October 2026 in UPC_CoA_68/2026, UPC_CoA_69/2026, UPC_CoA_71/2026 and UPC_CoA_72/2026, the UPC Court of Appeal refused to re-establish Network System Technologies’ right to appeal against the Munich Local Division’s orders of 11 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2024 and UPC_CFI_65/2024). Those orders had dismissed its requests for the production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in its dispute with Qualcomm over EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669 and EP 1 875 683.

Question

Can a party whose appeal was held to be out of time obtain re-establishment of rights by pointing to the ambiguous character of the contested decision?

Decision

Seised under Rules 320.1 and 320.2 RoP, the Court held the applications admissible but unfounded, as the applicant had not exercised all due care. The arguments it advanced, namely the heading “Decision”, the absence of the Rule 190 requests from the operative part and incomplete information on the available remedies, had already failed to establish an excusable error when the Court, by order of 17 August 2026, held the appeals late under Rule 224.1(b) RoP. It also declined to treat the appeals lodged on 13 July 2026 as filed in time.

Key points for practice

Arguments that have already failed to excuse a late appeal will fare no better in support of an application for re-establishment of rights.
Where the heading or operative part of a decision is ambiguous, prudence dictates appealing within the shortest time limit that might apply.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 190, 224.1(b), 320.1 and 320.2 RoP
Case law cited: Network System v Qualcomm, UPC Court of Appeal, 17 August 2026

Related decisions

Network System v Qualcomm, 17 August 2026, the order holding the appeals out of time.
Network System v Qualcomm, 15 July 2026, an earlier act in the same proceedings.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 17 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Local and central divisions.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: English from the language of proceedings
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

UPC_CoA_71/2026 official number
UPC_CoA_69/2026 official number
UPC_CoA_72/2026 official number
UPC_CoA_68/2026 official number

Follow these proceedings

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2024, UPC_CFI_65/2024

Parties

claimantNetwork System Technologies LLC43 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantQualcomm Incorporated25 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantQualcomm Technologies, Inc.21 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantQualcomm Germany GmbH21 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

11 March 2026 Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_64/2024, 11 March 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_64/2024
La division locale de Munich rejette l'action en contrefaçon de Network System Technologies contre Qualcomm fondée sur le brevet EP 1 875 683, jugé valable, ainsi que la demande reconventionnelle en nullité et la demande de production du code source.
11 March 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_63/2024, 11 March 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_63/2024
Le brevet EP 1 552 669 est annulé pour la France et l'Allemagne pour extension de l'objet, et l'action en contrefaçon contre Qualcomm est rejetée, la reproduction des caractéristiques n'étant pas établie. La demande de production du code source est refusée.
11 March 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_65/2024, 11 March 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_65/2024
15 July 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 15 July 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_71/2026
15 July 2026 Qualcomm v Network System (CoA, 15 July 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_68/2026
15 July 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_72/2026, 15 July 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_72/2026
15 July 2026 Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, 15 July 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_69/2026
Les frais d'appel se calculent sur la valeur fixée en première instance, que l'appelant ne peut réduire unilatéralement. Pour une demande reconventionnelle en nullité, le droit dû est celui de première instance applicable lors de l'appel, majoré de 10 %. La demande de remboursement de Qualcomm est rejetée et NST doit v…
17 August 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 17 August 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_69/2026 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel déclare irrecevables, faute d'avoir été formés dans le délai de 15 jours, les appels contre le rejet des demandes de production de preuves contenu dans les décisions au fond, ainsi que les demandes R. 190 réitérées en appel sans fait nouveau.
17 August 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_72/2026, 17 August 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_72/2026
17 August 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 17 August 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_71/2026
9 October 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 9 October 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_69/2026, UPC_CoA_72/2026, UPC_CoA_71/2026, UPC_CoA_68/2026 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
9 October 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 9 October 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_69/2026
La cour d’appel refuse le relevé de forclusion : le rejet des demandes de production de preuves figurant dans les motifs constitue une ordonnance à attaquer dans les quinze jours, l’absence de reprise au dispositif n’étant qu’une erreur matérielle.
9 October 2026 Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_72/2026, 9 October 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_72/2026
La cour d’appel refuse le relevé de forclusion : le rejet des demandes de production de preuves figurant dans les motifs constitue une ordonnance à attaquer dans les quinze jours, l’absence de reprise au dispositif n’étant qu’une erreur matérielle.
22 October 2026 Qualcomm v Network System Technologies (CoA, UPC_CoA_68/2026, 22 October 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_68/2026
La juge-rapporteure de la cour d’appel rappelle que les ordonnances de confidentialité de première instance non frappées d’appel, ou confirmées en appel, continuent de s’appliquer en appel, et enjoint à Qualcomm de préciser au plus tard le 26 octobre 2026 à qui peuvent être communiqués ses mémoires en réponse et appels…
22 October 2026 Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 22 October 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_69/2026
La juge-rapporteure de la cour d’appel rappelle que les ordonnances de confidentialité de première instance non frappées d’appel, ou confirmées en appel, continuent de s’appliquer en appel, et enjoint à Qualcomm de préciser au plus tard le 26 octobre 2026 à qui peuvent être communiqués ses mémoires en réponse et appels…
22 October 2026 Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 22 October 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_71/2026
La juge-rapporteure de la cour d’appel rappelle que les ordonnances de confidentialité de première instance non frappées d’appel, ou confirmées en appel, continuent de s’appliquer en appel, et enjoint à Qualcomm de préciser au plus tard le 26 octobre 2026 à qui peuvent être communiqués ses mémoires en réponse et appels…
22 October 2026 Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_72/2026, 22 October 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_72/2026
La juge-rapporteure de la cour d’appel rappelle que les ordonnances de confidentialité de première instance non frappées d’appel, ou confirmées en appel, continuent de s’appliquer en appel, et enjoint à Qualcomm de préciser au plus tard le 26 octobre 2026 à qui peuvent être communiqués ses mémoires en réponse et appels…
27 October 2026 Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 27 October 2026) Appeal · UPC_CoA_71/2026 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d’appel ordonne le remboursement à Qualcomm de 61 150 euros de taxes judiciaires versées en trop pour son appel incident contre la décision rendue sur la demande reconventionnelle en annulation.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Appeal
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d’appel déclare recevables mais mal fondées les demandes de restitutio in integrum de Network System Technologies, faute pour elle d’avoir fait preuve de toute la vigilance requise.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2024, UPC_CFI_65/2024).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 1 552 399 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 1 552 669 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 1 875 683 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 17 August 2026) cited in this record
Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, 15 July 2026) cited in this record
Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 9 October 2026) cites this decision
Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_72/2026, 9 October 2026) cites this decision
Qualcomm v Network System Technologies (CoA, UPC_CoA_68/2026, 22 October 2026) cites this decision
Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 22 October 2026) cites this decision
Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_70/2026, 22 October 2026) cites this decision
Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_71/2026, 22 October 2026) cites this decision
Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_72/2026, 22 October 2026) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 1 552 399` Integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions recorded proprietor: Koninklijke Philips NV	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 27 other decision(s): Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_451/2024, 11 Marc · Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 17 August 2026) · Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_64/2024, 11 March · Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_63/2024, 11 March 2026) · Qualcomm v Network System (CFI, 25 August 2025) · Lindal Dispenser v Rocep-Lusol (CFI, UPC_CFI_202/2024, 29 May 2025) · Network System Technologies v AUDI (CoA, 19 February 2025) · Bentley Motors v Network Systems Technologies (CFI, 14 January 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 1 552 669` Integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions recorded proprietor: Koninklijke Philips NV	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 25 other decision(s): Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_63/2024, 11 March 2026) · Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 17 August 2026) · Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, 25 August 2025) · Network System Technologies v AUDI (CoA, 19 February 2025) · Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) · Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) · Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 17 September 2024) · Network System Technologies v Texas Instruments (CFI, 13 August 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 1 875 683` Integrated circuit with data communication network and IC design method recorded proprietor: Koninklijke Philips NV	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 26 other decision(s): Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_64/2024, 11 March · Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 17 August 2026) · Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_63/2024, 11 March 2026) · Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_451/2024, 11 Marc · Qualcomm Germany v Network System (CFI, 25 August 2025) · Network System Technologies v AUDI (CoA, 19 February 2025) · Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) · Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.