Opens in a new tab

Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, ORD_29914/2024, 22 May 2024)

Date22 May 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_28999/2024 · ORD_29914/2024
PartiesVolkswagen AG

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_220/2024, APL_25924/2024, App_28999/2024), the Court of Appeal (second panel) rejected Volkswagen’s request to expedite its appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 23 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_515/2023), which had dismissed its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies (NST), proprietor of EP 1 552 399. An unreasoned request for expedition does not lead to the ordinary appeal time limits being shortened.

Question

Should the Court of Appeal expedite the appeal and shorten time limits (Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP) because Volkswagen had already incurred significant costs, without security, for its statement of defence on the merits and those costs were still rising?

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 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). Volkswagen, which filed the request with its statement of appeal 15 days after the impugned order was signed, did not explain why NST’s response was needed sooner. Having regard to NST’s interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, 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

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

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.


Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
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

No case number recorded in this record.
First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_515/2023

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande d'accélération de l'appel de Volkswagen est rejetée : rien ne justifie d'abréger le délai de réponse de quinze jours de NST, et la demande visant les délais ultérieurs est trop imprécise.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_515/2023).
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.