TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments Deutschland (CoA, 14 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 14 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_651/2024), the second panel of the Court of Appeal, on discretionary review, set aside the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division of 16 October 2024, which had required Total Semiconductor to provide EUR 600,000 security for costs in its action against Texas Instruments (EP 2 746 957) and had refused leave to appeal. The order clarifies the respective roles of the judge-rapporteur and the panel on security for costs.

Question

May the judge-rapporteur alone order security for costs under Rule 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal?

Decision

Discretionary review was admitted although there was no panel order, as the question of competence concerns access to justice (paragraphs 7 and 8). Rule 158 RoP does not reserve security to the panel: the judge-rapporteur may order it (Rule 1.2(a) RoP, paragraphs 9 to 12). Such an order is, however, a case management order subject to panel review under Rule 333 RoP (paragraphs 13 to 15), the judge-rapporteur therefore cannot decide on leave to appeal, which is for the panel after review (paragraphs 16 and 17). As the period under Rule 333.2 RoP had expired and the information on appeal suggested the decision was final, the Court set aside the whole order and exceptionally referred the matter back to the same panel (Rules 242.2(b) and 243.1 RoP), which may rule again on security without consulting the parties. Costs, including those of the appeal, are left to the Court of First Instance (paragraphs 18 to 22).

Key points for practice

• Against security for costs ordered by the judge-rapporteur, the route is a request for panel review (Rule 333 RoP), the panel alone then being competent to grant leave to appeal.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 69(4) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 1.2(a), 158, 220.2, 220.3, 242.2(b), 243.1 and 333

Case law cited

Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024, Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 15 October 2024

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.