Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v. Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States

1

ORDER

of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court

issued on 15 July 2026

on Court fees (R. 370.5 and R. 370.6 RoP)

HEADNOTES

Regarding the payment of court fees under R. 220.1(a) RoP for a counterclaim for revocation, following

the adoption of the amended Table of court fees, the current wording is to be understood as referring to

the fee to be paid for filing a counterclaim for revocation in the first instance at the time of filing the

appeal raised by 10%.

As a general principle, fees shall be paid in accordance with the value of the action as determined by the

Court of First Instance. The parties are not entitled to unilaterally determine or amend the value of the

action for the purpose of calculating the applicable court fees. Should a party consider that the value of

the action determined by the Court of First Instance is incorrect, objections concerning the determination

of the value of the action may be raised as part of the grounds of appeal.

If the value of the action determined by the CFI is not disputed as such, but there is reason, which is

apparent on face value, to determine the court fees based on a lower value of the action on appeal than

that set by the CFI for the first instance proceedings, this may be requested and the Court of Appeal may

provisionally agree therewith. However, the Court of Appeal can and shall only finally decide on the value

of the action on appeal after having heard the respondent, who may comment on that in the Statement

of response.

If the Court of Appeal subsequently determines that the value of the action should be assessed

differently, the court fees shall be recalculated accordingly and, where applicable, any overpaid amount

shall be reimbursed or additional fees shall have to be paid by the appellant.

KEYWORDS

Court fees on appeal

UPC Court of Appeal

UPC-CoA-68/2026

UPC Court of Appeal

UPC-CoA-68/2026

UPC-CoA-69/2026

UPC-CoA-70/2026

UPC-CoA-71/2026

UPC-CoA-72/2026

2

APPELLANTS IN 68/2026 AND RESPONDENTS IN 69/2026, 70/2026, 71/2026, 72/2026 (AND DEFENDANTS AND

COUNTERCLAIMANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)

1. Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States

2. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States

3. Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Munich, Germany

(hereinafter jointly reffered to as ‘Qualcomm‘)

represented by Johannes Heselberger, attorney at law, and other attorneys at law and Patent attorneys of

the law firms BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB, Munich, Germany

RESPONDENT IN 68/2026 AND APPELLANT IN 69/2026, 70/2026, 71/2026, 72/2026 (AND CLAIMANT AND COUNTER-

DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)

Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States

(hereinafter referred to as ‘NST‘)

represented by Dr. Thomas Gniadek, attorney at law of HOFFMANN EITLE PartmbB, Munich, Germany

PATENTS AT ISSUE

EP 1 552 399

EP 1 552 669

EP 1 875 683

DECIDING JUDGE

This order was issued by Rian Kalden, presiding judge of panel 2 and judge-rapporteur

IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of the Local Division Munich issued on 11 March 2026 in the infringement proceedings

UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2024, UPC_CFI_65/2024 and counterclaim for revocation proceedings

UPC_CFI_449/2024, UPC_CFI_451/2024

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

English

OF FACTS (INSOFAR AS RELEVANT)

1. On 4 March 2024, NST initiated infringement proceedings against Qualcomm and two Samsung

companies.

2. Qualcomm, in response, lodged counterclaims for revocation in relation to the patents at issue.

3. NST requested a finding of infringement of the patents at issue and the grant of corresponding

remedies, including an injunction and other measures following from a finding of infringement, as

3

well as an order for the production of evidence under R. 190 RoP. Qualcomm requested dismissal of

the infringement actions and, by way of counte