ORD_29909/2024 | EP1552399 | UPC Decision Search

	Type Order Decision	Reference	Court Division Brüssel Brussels Copenhagen Den Haag Düsseldorf Hamburg Helsinki Lisbon Lissabon Luxembourg Luxemburg Mailand Mannheim Milan München Munich Nordic Baltic Regional Division Paris The Hague Vienna			Tags
22 May, 2024	Order	ORD_29909/2024	Luxembourg (LU)	EP1552399	R.225(e), R.9.3(b) Rules Procedure ...	Please log in to add tags.	Please log in to add notes. Please log in to add tags. Show on UPC ORD_29909/2024 22 May, 2024 Order Summary (AI generated) Party AUDI AG Registry Information Registry Number: App_29007/2024 Court Division: Luxembourg (LU) Type of Action: Generic application Language of Proceedings: EN Patent at issue EP1552399 Sections Headnotes (EN) In the appeal against an order in which an application for security for costs was dismissed, a request by the Appellant to expedite the appeal and shorten any deadlines where possible in accordance with R.9.3 (b) RoP is denied for being too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. Keywords (EN) Expedition of the appeal Cited Legal Standards Art. 69.4 UPCA R.158.1 RoP R.224.2(b) RoP R.225 (e), R.9.3 (b) RoP R.225(e), R.9.3(b) Rules Procedure R.225(e) R.9.3 RoP R.235 R.224.2(b) RoP R.9.3(b) RoP R.9.3 (b) RoP Documents Download Order (EN) Add a custom note or summary to this decision Styles Text Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Bold ⌘B Italic ⌘I Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S Bullet list Ordered list Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B Insert link ⌘K Insert link Unlink Align Left Center Right UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_219/2024 APL_25923/2024 App_29007/2024 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 May 2024 concerning a request for expedition of the appeal pursuant to R.225(e), R.9.3(b) Rules of Procedure HEADNOTES: In the appeal against an order in which an application for security for costs was dismissed, a request by the Appellant to expedite the appeal and shorten any deadlines where possible in accordance with R.9.3 (b) RoP is denied for being too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. KEYWORDS: Expedition of the appeal, R.225 (e), R.9.3 (b) RoP APPLICANT / APPELLANT / DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE: Audi AG , Ingolstadt, Germany Hereinafter also referred to as: Audi ' ' represented by: Dr. Jan Bösing, Rechtsanwalt, Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich, Germany RESPONDENT / CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Network System Technologies LLC. , Portland, ME, Unites States of America Hereinafter also referred to as NST , ' ' represented by: Dr Thomas Gniadek, Simmons&Simmons, Munich, Germany LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English PATENT AT ISSUE EP 1 552 399 PANEL Second Panel DECIDING JUDGES: This order has been adopted by Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Date: 23 April 2024 (signed 25 April 2024); ORD_17417/2024 in related proceedings (requests for security for costs) App_11456/2024, App_11454/2024 and App_11732/2024 in the main infringement action ACT_597693/2023) □ Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich): UPC_CFI_515/2023 SUMMARY OF FACTS On 1 March 2024 Audi filed an application under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP (App. 11456/2024), requesting the Court to order NST to provide adequate security for legal costs and other expenses incurred by Audi. The Court of First Instance denied the Application. Leave to appeal was granted in the Order. INDICATION OF PARTIES REQUESTS ' In the appeal proceedings, Audi requests that the impugned order shall be set aside. It argues that the Court of First Instance applied legally erroneous standards of examination and of burden of proof for the decision on the provision of security for costs. The Court of First Instance furthermore misapplied the undisputed facts of the case at hand, Audi contends. . In the request for expedition of the appeal, Audi requests the Court of Appeal pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3 RoP to expedite the appeal and shorten any deadlines where possible. Audi argues that it already incurred significant legal costs for the filing of the statement of defence in the main infringement proceedings on the merits without any security that such costs will be reimbursed by NST. These legal costs continue to increase and thus need to be secured as soon as possible. POINTS AT ISSUE Request for expedition of the appeal, R.225 (e), R.9.3 (b) RoP GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER The request for expedition is admissible. There is no need to consult NST about this request. Pursuant to R.235 and R.224.2(b) RoP a respondent has 15 days from service of the Statement of grounds of appeal to lodge a Statement of response. R.9.3(b) RoP empowers the Court to shorten any time period on a reasoned request by a party. Audi filed the request for expedition of the appeal, at the same time as it lodged the Statement of appeal, containing the grounds of appeal, 15 days after the signature date of the impugned order. Audi has not explained that and why it would have a particular interest in the Statement of response being filed before any particular date, prior to the end of the time period of 15 days as provided for in R.224.2(b) RoP. Failing such a reason, the Court of Appeal cannot, in view of the interests of NST and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, also taking into account the time period Audi has taken to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal, see any reason to shorten the time period within which NST is to lodge its Statement of response. Insofar as the further appeal proceedings are concerned, the request is too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify the shortening of any of the future time periods at this stage of the proceedings. ORDER The request for expedition of the appeal is rejected. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PARTIES AND TO THE REGISTRY CONCERNING THE NEXT STEPS This order closes App_29007/2024. Issued on 22 May 2024 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Judges Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge

ORD_29909/2024

UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_219/2024 APL_25923/2024 App_29007/2024

ORDER

of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 May 2024 concerning a request for expedition of the appeal pursuant to R.225(e), R.9.3(b) Rules of Procedure

HEADNOTES:

In the appeal against an order in which an application for security for costs was dismissed, a request by the Appellant to expedite the appeal and shorten any deadlines where possible in accordance with R.9.3 (b) RoP is denied for being too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.

KEYWORDS:

Expedition of the appeal, R.225 (e), R.9.3 (b) RoP

APPLICANT / APPELLANT / DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE:

Audi AG , Ingolstadt, Germany

Hereinafter also referred to as: Audi ' '

represented by: Dr. Jan Bösing, Rechtsanwalt, Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich, Germany

RESPONDENT / CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Network System Technologies LLC. , Portland, ME, Unites States of America

Hereinafter also referred to as NST , ' '

represented by: Dr Thomas Gniadek, Simmons&Simmons, Munich, Germany

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:

English

PATENT AT ISSUE

EP 1 552 399

PANEL

Second Panel

DECIDING JUDGES:

This order has been adopted by

Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur

Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge

Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge

IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

□ Date: 23 April 2024 (signed 25 April 2024); ORD_17417/2024 in related proceedings (requests for security for costs) App_11456/2024, App_11454/2024 and App_11732/2024 in the main infringement action ACT_597693/2023)
□ Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich): UPC_CFI_515/2023

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On 1 March 2024 Audi filed an application under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP (App. 11456/2024), requesting the Court to order NST to provide adequate security for legal costs and other expenses incurred by Audi. The Court of First Instance denied the Application. Leave to appeal was granted in the Order.

INDICATION OF PARTIES REQUESTS '

In the appeal proceedings, Audi requests that the impugned order shall be set aside. It argues that the Court of First Instance applied legally erroneous standards of examination and of burden of proof for the decision on the provision of security for costs. The Court of First Instance furthermore misapplied the undisputed facts of the case at hand, Audi contends.

In the request for expedition of the appeal, Audi requests the Court of Appeal pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3 RoP to expedite the appeal and shorten any deadlines where possible. Audi argues that it already incurred significant legal costs for the filing of the statement of defence in the main infringement proceedings on the merits without any security that such costs will be reimbursed by NST. These legal costs continue to increase and thus need to be secured as soon as possible.

POINTS AT ISSUE

Request for expedition of the appeal, R.225 (e), R.9.3 (b) RoP

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER

1. The request for expedition is admissible.
1. There is no need to consult NST about this request.
1. Pursuant to R.235 and R.224.2(b) RoP a respondent has 15 days from service of the Statement of grounds of appeal to lodge a Statement of response.
1. R.9.3(b) RoP empowers the Court to shorten any time period on a reasoned request by a party.
1. Audi filed the request for expedition of the appeal, at the same time as it lodged the Statement of appeal, containing the grounds of appeal, 15 days after the signature date of the impugned order.
1. Audi has not explained that and why it would have a particular interest in the Statement of response being filed before any particular date, prior to the end of the time period of 15 days as provided for in R.224.2(b) RoP. Failing such a reason, the Court of Appeal cannot, in view of the interests of NST and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, also taking into account the time period Audi has taken to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal, see any reason to shorten the time period within which NST is to lodge its Statement of response.
1. Insofar as the further appeal proceedings are concerned, the request is too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify the shortening of any of the future time periods at this stage of the proceedings.

ORDER

The request for expedition of the appeal is rejected.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PARTIES AND TO THE REGISTRY CONCERNING THE NEXT STEPS This order closes App_29007/2024.

Issued on 22 May 2024

NAMES AND SIGNATURES

Judges

Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur

Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge

Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge