Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point concerning the notification requirements under Rule R.158.4 RoP regarding security for costs. The court clarified that even if an initial order specifies a deadline for providing security, the warning about potential default judgment (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded within that original operative text. Instead, a separate notification order is sufficient to ensure procedural fairness and compliance.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court ruled that while R.158.4 RoP requires notification about default judgment if security is not provided, this information does not necessarily have to be included in the operative part of the original Order itself; a separate order suffices for proper notification.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Network System Technologies LLC. vs Volkswagen AG is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsRenault Nederland N.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and various Renault entities. The Court granted the request, citing fairness grounds, the international nature of the parties, and the predominant use of English in the relevant technical field. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC regarding procedural language when supported by objective circumstances.
Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, Centripetal Limited sought a preservation of evidence (Saisie) against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., alleging highly probable infringement of EP 3 821 580 related to network security solutions. The applicant requested extensive measures, including real-time monitoring and seizure of digital data at the defendant's premises. Despite the case being referred back by the Court of Appeal (CoA), the Local Division in Mannheim ultimately rejected the application for interim measures.
LiNA Medical AGvsSchultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural issues arising from an application to preserve evidence in a medical device patent case. The court emphasized that defendants must actively utilize provided CMS access codes and appoint representatives promptly if they wish to comment on confidentiality interests related to expert reports. Since the respondent failed to log into the CMS, the court proceeded with disclosing the unredacted expert description to the applicant while simultaneously revoking the evidence preservation measures unless the main infringement proceedings were quickly initiated.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 875 683. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the procedural effectiveness of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. The ruling confirms that formal requirements for withdrawal are sufficient, even without explicit proof of power of attorney by a registered UPC representative.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated
In this significant UPC decision, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement suit against Qualcomm regarding EP 1 552 669. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich ultimately revoked the patent in France and Germany, dismissing the infringement action entirely. This case underscores the high burden of proof required by claimants to conclusively demonstrate patent infringement before the UPC.
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.