Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
Detailed Summary
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) initiated three parallel infringement actions against Audi AG before the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, based on three European patents (EP 1 875 683, EP 1 552 399, and EP 1 552 669). NST had acquired these patents from Philips, which had previously opted them out of UPC jurisdiction; NST subsequently withdrew those opt-outs. NST sought damages for alleged patent infringements that occurred prior to its acquisition of the patents, and also claimed damages arising in the UK and Northern Ireland. NST alleged infringement by a very large number of embodiments but provided a detailed claim chart and infringement report for only one embodiment.
Audi filed preliminary objections under Rules 19 and 20 RoP and requests under R.361 RoP (action manifestly bound to fail). The Munich Local Division rejected the R.361 requests in full, rejected the preliminary objections in part, and deferred the remaining part for decision in the main proceedings. Audi appealed.
Audi's arguments on appeal included: (1) the UPC lacks jurisdiction over damages suffered in the UK and Northern Ireland, and this objection should have been decided immediately rather than deferred; (2) the UPC lacks jurisdiction because the opt-out withdrawal was invalid, as it was filed by an attorney of Simmons & Simmons who was not a registered representative and no valid power of attorney was submitted; (3) NST lacks standing to sue because the Statement of claim contained no allegation or evidence of NST's entitlement to damage claims for past infringements; and (4) the Statement of claim lacked sufficient substantiation, as only one embodiment was detailed, which contravenes R.13.1(n) RoP and the principle of efficiency.
NST countered that: the jurisdiction question regarding UK and Northern Ireland damages was for the Munich LD to decide at its discretion; the opt-out was validly withdrawn without need for a power of attorney; R.361 RoP serves only to bar proceedings evidently lacking cause of action and should not unduly restrict access to justice; NST as patent proprietor is entitled to bring the infringement action and claim damages for past infringement; and the scope of the proceedings was sufficiently clear and in accordance with standard practice in national courts of Contracting Member States.
The Court of Appeal, composed of Presiding Judge Rian Kalden and Judges Ingeborg Simonsson and Patricia Rombach, rejected all of Audi's requests. On the preliminary objections, the Court held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to either decide on a preliminary objection as soon as practicable or to defer it to the main proceedings, and Audi did not demonstrate that the Munich LD's exercise of discretion was erroneous. On the R.361 requests, the Court held that proceedings under R.361 RoP should not result in a full exchange of arguments and evidence but must be reserved for clear-cut cases, as indicated by the word 'manifestly.' The Court further held that the question of whether claims have been sufficiently argued and substantiated in the Statement of claim is not a matter to decide under R.361 RoP but is for the Court of First Instance to decide in the main proceedings. The Court also found that a Statement of claim that sets out in detail why one infringing embodiment infringes the patent and includes a list of further embodiments with similar structure allegedly infringing for essentially the same reasons does not result in an action manifestly lacking any foundation in law. The Court rejected NST's request for a cost decision, holding that R.242.1 RoP means the Court of Appeal will not issue a cost order when its decision is not a final order concluding the action, but noted that the Munich LD should include the costs of these appeal proceedings in its cost assessment in the main proceedings, bearing in mind that Audi was the unsuccessful party.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in AUDI AG vs Network System Technologies LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.