ORD_36276/2024 | EP1552669 | 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
17 June, 2024	Order	ORD_36276/2024	Luxembourg (LU)	EP1552669	R.239.1 RoP ...	Please log in to add tags.	Please log in to add notes. Please log in to add tags. Show on UPC ORD_36276/2024 17 June, 2024 Order Summary (AI generated) Party Volkswagen AG Registry Information Registry Number: App_34219/2024 Court Division: Luxembourg (LU) Type of Action: Generic application Language of Proceedings: EN Patent at issue EP1552669 Sections Headnotes (EN) In accordance with R.239.1 RoP, Rules 101-110 RoP (on the interim procedure) apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal proceedings. In view thereof, Rules 35 and 36 RoP must be held to be applicable mutatis mutandis in the appeal proceedings as well. Keywords (EN) Lodging additional written pleadings, R.36 RoP Cited Legal Standards Art. 69.4 UPCA R.110.1 RoP R.158.1 RoP R.239.1 RoP R.36, R.9.3 (b) RoP R.36 RoP R.9.3 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_222/2024 APL_25928/2024 App_34219/2024 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 17 June 2024 concerning a request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings HEADNOTES: In accordance with R.239.1 RoP, Rules 101-110 RoP (on the interim procedure) apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal proceedings. In view thereof, Rules 35 and 36 RoP must be held to be applicable mutatis mutandis in the appeal proceedings as well. KEYWORDS: Lodging additional written pleadings, R.36 RoP APPLICANT / APPELLANT / DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE: Volkswagen AG , Wolfsburg, Germany hereinafter also referred to as: 'Volkswagen' 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 1 552 669 PANEL Second Panel DECIDING JUDGE: IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Date: 23 April 2024 (signed 25 April 2024); ORD_12483/2024 in related proceedings (requests for security for costs) App_11431/2024, App_11444/2024 and App_11835/2024 in the main infringement action ACT_597691/2023) □ Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich): UPC_CFI_513/2023 SUMMARY OF FACTS On 1 March 2024 Volkswagen filed an application under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP (App. 11431/2024), requesting the Court to order NST to provide adequate security for legal costs and other expenses incurred by Volkswagen. The Court of First Instance denied the Application. Leave to appeal was granted in the Order. INDICATION OF PARTIES REQUESTS ' In the appeal proceedings (APL_25928/2024), Volkswagen 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, Volkswagen contends. NST lodged its Statement of response on 31 May 2024, requesting (in short) to reject the appeal. In the application dated 10 June 2024, Volkswagen responded to NST´s Statement of response and requests the Court of Appeal pursuant to R.9.3 RoP to allow this response, in order to correct certain facts submitted by NST in its Statement of response. POINTS AT ISSUE Request for lodging additional written pleadings, R.36, R.9.3 (b) RoP GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER The request is admissible. There is no need to consult NST about this request. Pursuant to R.36 RoP, without prejudice to the powers of the judge-rapporteur pursuant to R.110.1 RoP, a party may lodge before the date on which the judge-rapporteur intends to close the written procedure, a reasoned request that further written pleadings may be exchanged. In accordance with R.239.1 RoP, Rules 101-110 RoP (on the interim procedure) apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal proceedings. In view thereof, Rules 35 and 36 RoP must be held to be applicable mutatis mutandis in the appeal proceedings as well. The application must be understood as a reasoned request under R.36 RoP. The Court of Appeal considers the request by Volkswagen to be sufficiently reasoned. It wants to correct some facts submitted by NST in relation to its behavior in the market, together with written evidence. The Court of Appeal considers that Volkswagen has a sufficient interest to do so and that the written procedure is the most convenient phase to do so. The Court of Appeal therefore allows the request. NST will be given the opportunity to respond to the additional statement lodged by Volkswagen within 14 days after the day on which this order is issued. ORDER The request for filing an addition statement is allowed. NST may file a response to the additional statement lodged by Volkswagen within 14 days after the day on which this order is issued, i.e. by 1 July 2024. The written procedure shall be deemed closed after expiry of this time-period. Issued on 17 June 2024 Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur

ORD_36276/2024

UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_222/2024 APL_25928/2024 App_34219/2024

ORDER

of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 17 June 2024

concerning a request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings

HEADNOTES:

In accordance with R.239.1 RoP, Rules 101-110 RoP (on the interim procedure) apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal proceedings. In view thereof, Rules 35 and 36 RoP must be held to be applicable mutatis mutandis in the appeal proceedings as well.

KEYWORDS:

Lodging additional written pleadings, R.36 RoP

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

Volkswagen AG , Wolfsburg, Germany hereinafter also referred to as:

'Volkswagen'

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 1 552 669

PANEL

Second Panel

DECIDING JUDGE:

IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

□ Date: 23 April 2024 (signed 25 April 2024); ORD_12483/2024 in related proceedings (requests for security for costs) App_11431/2024, App_11444/2024 and App_11835/2024 in the main infringement action ACT_597691/2023)
□ Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich): UPC_CFI_513/2023

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On 1 March 2024 Volkswagen filed an application under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP (App. 11431/2024), requesting the Court to order NST to provide adequate security for legal costs and other expenses incurred by Volkswagen. The Court of First Instance denied the Application. Leave to appeal was granted in the Order.

INDICATION OF PARTIES REQUESTS '

In the appeal proceedings (APL_25928/2024), Volkswagen 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, Volkswagen contends.

NST lodged its Statement of response on 31 May 2024, requesting (in short) to reject the appeal.

In the application dated 10 June 2024, Volkswagen responded to NST´s Statement of response and requests the Court of Appeal pursuant to R.9.3 RoP to allow this response, in order to correct certain facts submitted by NST in its Statement of response.

POINTS AT ISSUE

Request for lodging additional written pleadings, R.36, R.9.3 (b) RoP

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER

1. The request is admissible.
1. There is no need to consult NST about this request.
1. Pursuant to R.36 RoP, without prejudice to the powers of the judge-rapporteur pursuant to R.110.1 RoP, a party may lodge before the date on which the judge-rapporteur intends to close the written procedure, a reasoned request that further written pleadings may be exchanged.
1. In accordance with R.239.1 RoP, Rules 101-110 RoP (on the interim procedure) apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal proceedings. In view thereof, Rules 35 and 36 RoP must be held to be applicable mutatis mutandis in the appeal proceedings as well.
1. The application must be understood as a reasoned request under R.36 RoP.
1. The Court of Appeal considers the request by Volkswagen to be sufficiently reasoned. It wants to correct some facts submitted by NST in relation to its behavior in the market, together with written evidence. The Court of Appeal considers that Volkswagen has a

sufficient interest to do so and that the written procedure is the most convenient phase to do so. The Court of Appeal therefore allows the request.

1. NST will be given the opportunity to respond to the additional statement lodged by Volkswagen within 14 days after the day on which this order is issued.

ORDER

The request for filing an addition statement is allowed.

NST may file a response to the additional statement lodged by Volkswagen within 14 days after the day on which this order is issued, i.e. by 1 July 2024.

The written procedure shall be deemed closed after expiry of this time-period.

Issued on 17 June 2024

Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur