Opens in a new tab

Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 17 September 2024)

Date17 September 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Registry referenceAPL_25922/2024 · ORD_48922/2024
PartiesVolkswagen AG v. Network System Technologies LLC

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 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_218/2024, UPC_CoA_220/2024 and UPC_CoA_222/2024), the Court of Appeal (R. Kalden, presiding and judge-rapporteur, I. Simonsson, P. Rombach) set aside three orders of the Munich Local Division of 23 April 2024 and ordered Network System Technologies (NST), a US company, to provide security for Volkswagen’s costs in three infringement actions (EP 1 875 683, EP 1 552 399 and EP 1 552 669). The order clarifies how the burden of substantiation is allocated under Rule 158 RoP.

Question

When does a defendant obtain security for costs where the claimant does not disclose its financial position, and what weight does the claimant’s patent portfolio carry?

Decision

The claimant’s financial position must give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable (paragraph 7). The applicant substantiates its request credibly. The claimant, which holds the information, must then rebut it with substantiated arguments (paragraph 8). Requiring precise evidence of insolvency sets the bar too high, and absent details from NST it is assumed to have no other relevant assets (paragraph 10). The patent portfolio is not sufficient: price unsubstantiated, imminent expiry, value dependent on the outcome of the dispute (paragraphs 11 to 13). As NST says it is funded to cover any costs orders, access to justice is not barred (paragraphs 14 and 15). The amounts sought are halved to EUR 100,000, 100,000 and 300,000, within three weeks (paragraphs 17 and 18).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69(4)
Rules of Procedure
Rule 158

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.

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
Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel infirme le refus de garantie et ordonne à NST de constituer une garantie pour frais de 100 000, 100 000 et 300 000 euros dans les trois actions, faute pour elle d'avoir justifié de ses actifs.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
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 1 875 683
Integrated circuit with data communication network and IC design method
recorded proprietor: Koninklijke Philips NV
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 26 other decision(s): Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_64/2024, 11 March · Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 17 August 2026) · Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_63/2024, 11 March 2026) · Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_451/2024, 11 Marc · Qualcomm Germany v Network System (CFI, 25 August 2025) · Network System Technologies v AUDI (CoA, 19 February 2025) · Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) · Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024)
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
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
EP 1 552 669
Integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions
recorded proprietor: Koninklijke Philips NV
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 25 other decision(s): Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_63/2024, 11 March 2026) · Network System v Qualcomm (CoA, UPC_CoA_69/2026, 17 August 2026) · Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, 25 August 2025) · Network System Technologies v AUDI (CoA, 19 February 2025) · Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) · Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) · Network System Technologies v Texas Instruments (CFI, 13 August 2024) · Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, ORD_36278/2024, 17 June 2024)
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.