Texas Instruments v Network Systems Technologies (CoA, ORD_29621/2024, 22 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_225/2024, APL_25953/2024, App_27159/2024), the Court of Appeal (second panel) rejected the request of Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland to expedite their appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 23 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_515/2023), which had dismissed their application for security for costs in Network Systems Technologies’ (NST) infringement action on EP 1 552 399. Absent a concrete explanation, the ordinary appeal time limits were not shortened.

Question

Should the Court of Appeal expedite the appeal and shorten time limits (Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP) because the appellants’ defence costs, including those of their counterclaim for revocation, keep rising while NST provides no security?

Decision

The request was admissible and NST did not need to be heard (paragraphs 1 and 2). The respondent has 15 days from service of the statement of grounds of appeal to lodge its statement of response (Rules 235.2 and 224.2(b) RoP), and Rule 9.3(b) RoP allows a time period to be shortened on a reasoned request (paragraphs 3 and 4). The appellants, who filed the request with their statement of appeal 14 days after the impugned order was signed, did not explain why NST’s response was needed sooner. Having regard to NST’s interests, the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, and the time the appellants had themselves taken, the court saw no reason to shorten that period (paragraphs 5 and 6). The request concerning later time limits was too unspecific and insufficiently substantiated at this stage (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• Mounting defence costs during the appeal do not in themselves justify expedition: the request must explain why each time limit should be shortened.
• Practical point: the court weighs the time the appellant itself used to lodge its appeal against the acceleration it seeks from the other side.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(b), 158.1, 224.2(b), 225(e) and 235.2

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.