ORD_53777/2024 | EP1875683 | 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
27 September, 2024	Order	ORD_53777/2024	Luxembourg (LU)	EP1875683	R.158.4 RoP ...	Please log in to add tags.	Please log in to add notes. Please log in to add tags. Show on UPC ORD_53777/2024 27 September, 2024 Order Summary (AI generated) Party AUDI AG Registry Information Registry Number: App_53212/2024 Court Division: Luxembourg (LU) Type of Action: Generic application Language of Proceedings: EN Patent at issue EP1875683 Sections Keywords (EN) notification pursuant to R.158.4 RoP Headnotes (EN) It does not follow from R.158.4 RoP that the information as meant therein must necessarily be given in the Order itself. It suffices that the information as meant in R.158.4 RoP is provided by a separate order. Cited Legal Standards R.158.4 RoP R.353 RoP R.355 RoP Rule 355 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_CoA_217/2024 APL_25919/2024 UPC_CoA_219/2024 APL_25923/2024 UPC_CoA_221/2024 APL_25926/2024 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 27 September 2024 concerning notification pursuant to R.158.4 RoP APPELLANT / DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Audi AG , Ingolstadt, Germany hereinafter also referred to as: Audi ; ' ' represented by: attorneys at law Dr. Jan Bösing, Saskia Mertsching, Monika Harten, 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: attorney at law Dr. Thomas Gniadek, Simmons&Simmons, Munich, Germany PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES This order has been adopted by the Second Panel: Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL □ ORD_48916/2024 in UPC_CoA_217/2024 APL_25919/2024; ORD_48918/2024 in UPC_CoA_219/2024 APL_25923/2024; ORD_48921/2024 in UPC_CoA_221/2024 APL_25926/2024, dated and issued on 17 September 2024 (hereinafter: the Order) PATENTS AT ISSUE EP 1 875 683 EP 1 552 399 EP 1 552 669 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PARTIES REQUESTS ' In the Order, the Court of Appeal ordered NST to provide security for costs to Audi in an amount of EUR 100.000 in APL_25926/2024, ACT_597691/2023, in an amount of EUR 100.000 in APL_25923/2024, ACT_597693/2023, and in an amount of EUR 300.000 in APL_25919/2024, ACT_597692/2023, either by deposit or by a bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the European Union, within three weeks from the date of service of the Order. On 25 September 2024 Audi filed a request for rectification pursuant to R.353 RoP (App_53212/2024 UPC_CoA_217/2024) . It requests that the rectified order also include: ' informs NST that, if NST fails to provide the respective security within three weeks from the date of service, a decision by default may be given, in accordance with Rule 355, in the respective infringement action '. Alternatively, Audi requests that the Court informs NST separately that, if NST fails to provide the respective security within three weeks from the date of service, a decision by default may be given, in accordance with R.355 RoP, in the respective infringement action. Audi argues that there is an obvious slip in the order, as R.158.4 RoP provides that the information as referred to above shall be given by the Court. The alternative request is based on an interpretation of R.158.4 RoP such that the information must not necessarily be provided in the operative part of the Order itself. POINT AT ISSUE Notification pursuant to R.158.4 RoP GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER Given that the Court of Appeal in the Order specified the time limit within which NST is to provide the required security, pursuant to R.158.4 RoP, the Court has to inform NST that if it fails to provide adequate security within the time stated in the Order, the Court (meaning in the present case: the Court of First Instance dealing with the main action) may give a decision by default pursuant to R.355 RoP. It does not follow from R.158.4 RoP that the information as meant therein must necessarily be given in the Order itself. In its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Audi had not requested that this information be included in the Order itself either. The Court thus does not see the necessity for rectification of the Order. It therefore suffices that the information as meant in R.158.4 RoP is provided to NST by this separate order. ORDER The Court of Appeal: -notifies NST that if it fails to provide adequate security -adequate meaning: the amount of security and in the required form as stated in the Order -within three weeks from the date of service of the Order, i.e. three weeks as from 17 September 2024, the Court of First Instance dealing with the main action, may give a decision by default pursuant to R.355 RoP. Issued on 27 September 2024 Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge

ORD_53777/2024

UPC_CoA_217/2024 APL_25919/2024 UPC_CoA_219/2024 APL_25923/2024 UPC_CoA_221/2024 APL_25926/2024

ORDER

of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 27 September 2024 concerning notification pursuant to R.158.4 RoP

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

Audi AG , Ingolstadt, Germany

hereinafter also referred to as: Audi ; ' '

represented by: attorneys at law Dr. Jan Bösing, Saskia Mertsching, Monika Harten, 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: attorney at law Dr. Thomas Gniadek, Simmons&Simmons, Munich, Germany

PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES

This order has been adopted by the Second Panel: Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge

ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

□ ORD_48916/2024 in UPC_CoA_217/2024 APL_25919/2024; ORD_48918/2024 in UPC_CoA_219/2024 APL_25923/2024; ORD_48921/2024 in UPC_CoA_221/2024 APL_25926/2024, dated and issued on 17 September 2024 (hereinafter: the Order)

PATENTS AT ISSUE

EP 1 875 683

EP 1 552 399

EP 1 552 669

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

English

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PARTIES REQUESTS '

1. In the Order, the Court of Appeal ordered NST to provide security for costs to Audi in an amount of EUR 100.000 in APL_25926/2024, ACT_597691/2023, in an amount of EUR 100.000 in APL_25923/2024, ACT_597693/2023, and in an amount of EUR 300.000 in APL_25919/2024, ACT_597692/2023, either by deposit or by a bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the European Union, within three weeks from the date of service of the Order.
1. On 25 September 2024 Audi filed a request for rectification pursuant to R.353 RoP (App_53212/2024 UPC_CoA_217/2024) . It requests that the rectified order also include: ' informs NST that, if NST fails to provide the respective security within three weeks from the date of service, a decision by default may be given, in accordance with Rule 355, in the respective infringement action '. Alternatively, Audi requests that the Court informs NST separately that, if NST fails to provide the respective security within three weeks from the date of service, a decision by default may be given, in accordance with R.355 RoP, in the respective infringement action.
1. Audi argues that there is an obvious slip in the order, as R.158.4 RoP provides that the information as referred to above shall be given by the Court. The alternative request is based on an interpretation of R.158.4 RoP such that the information must not necessarily be provided in the operative part of the Order itself.

POINT AT ISSUE

Notification pursuant to R.158.4 RoP

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER

1. Given that the Court of Appeal in the Order specified the time limit within which NST is to provide the required security, pursuant to R.158.4 RoP, the Court has to inform NST that if it fails to provide adequate security within the time stated in the Order, the Court (meaning in the present case: the Court of First Instance dealing with the main action) may give a decision by default pursuant to R.355 RoP.
1. It does not follow from R.158.4 RoP that the information as meant therein must necessarily be given in the Order itself. In its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Audi had not requested that this information be included in the Order itself either. The Court thus does not see the necessity for rectification of the Order. It therefore suffices that the information as meant in R.158.4 RoP is provided to NST by this separate order.

ORDER

The Court of Appeal:

-notifies NST that if it fails to provide adequate security -adequate meaning: the amount of security and in the required form as stated in the Order -within three weeks from the date of service of the Order, i.e. three weeks as from 17 September 2024, the Court of First Instance dealing with the main action, may give a decision by default pursuant to R.355 RoP.

Issued on 27 September 2024

Rian Kalden, Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur

Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge

Patricia Rombach, legally qualified judge