Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 17 September 2024)
| Date | 17 September 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.2 |
| Registry reference | APL_25922/2024 · ORD_48922/2024 |
| Parties | Volkswagen 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.
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
- Practical point: a defendant that documents its search for public financial information on the claimant shifts to the claimant the burden of substantiating its assets, and a portfolio of patents close to expiry is no substitute for security.
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
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
Parties
- defendantNetwork System Technologies LLC43 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantVolkswagen AG18 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 1 875 683mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 1 552 399mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 1 552 669mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- SYPOX v Topsoe (CFI, 27 August 2026) cites this decision
- La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CoA, 1 June 2026) cites this decision
- Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 28 April 2026) cites this decision
- Syntorr LP v Arthrex (CoA, UPC_CoA_890/2025, 18 February 2026) cites this decision
- Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump v Grundfos (CoA, 19 December 2025) cites this decision
- City Glass and Glazing v Maars Holding (CFI, 19 November 2024) cites this decision
- Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 14 October 2024) cites this decision
- Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 27 September 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.