TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments Deutschland (CoA, 27 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 27 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_651/2024, APL_59329/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal (I. Simonsson), on Total Semiconductor’s request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3), granted leave to appeal against the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division of 16 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_132/2024), which required security of EUR 600,000 and refused leave to appeal, but only on whether the judge-rapporteur could decide alone.

Question

Is a request for discretionary review admissible against an order of the judge-rapporteur, not referred to the panel, setting security for costs and refusing leave to appeal?

Decision

Case management orders of the judge-rapporteur are, as a rule, not directly appealable (Netgear v Huawei). Whether the judge-rapporteur may alone decide on security for costs and refuse leave to appeal, however, raises a question of access to justice that has not yet been decided and may be raised of the court’s own motion. The lack of a panel review therefore does not make the request inadmissible. Leave is confined to that question and excludes the amount and merits of the security. The President of the Court of Appeal will assign the case to a panel. Total Semiconductor must pay an additional fee of EUR 1,150.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: against a judge-rapporteur’s order refusing leave to appeal, a request for discretionary review may be admissible without prior panel review where the single judge’s competence is in issue.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 220.2, 220.3, 220.4, 229.3 and 355

Case law cited

Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_486/2023)

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.