Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, ORD_36285/2024, 17 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 17 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_218/2024, APL_25922/2024, App_34189/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal, Rian Kalden, allowed Volkswagen AG to lodge an additional written pleading in its appeal against the Munich Local Division’s refusal (UPC_CFI_514/2023) to order Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in the infringement action on EP 1 875 683. The order confirms that the interim procedure rules on further written pleadings apply on appeal.

Question

May a party on appeal seek leave to reply to the respondent’s statement of response, and on what basis?

Decision

The request, lodged under Rule 9.3 RoP, was admissible and was to be understood as a reasoned request under Rule 36 RoP (paragraphs 1 and 5). There was no need to consult NST (paragraph 2). As Rules 101 to 110 RoP on the interim procedure apply mutatis mutandis to appeal proceedings, Rules 35 and 36 RoP apply as well, and the request must be made before the date on which the judge-rapporteur intends to close the written procedure (paragraphs 3 and 4). Volkswagen, which wished to correct certain facts, had a sufficient interest, and the written procedure was the most convenient phase to do so (paragraph 6). NST was given 14 days, until 1 July 2024, to respond, after which the written procedure would be deemed closed (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: on appeal, a party wishing to reply to the respondent’s statement should file a reasoned Rule 36 RoP request before the written procedure closes, explaining why the reply is needed.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 35, 36, 101 to 110 and 158.1

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.