Key takeaways
A ruling on evidence production keeps its own 15-day appeal clock, even when buried inside the main decision
✓
- The Munich Local Division rejected NST’s request for Qualcomm’s source code inside the same document as its ruling on infringement. It never mentioned this rejection in the operative part.
- The Court of Appeal said this does not matter. A ruling on evidence production is still a separate “order.” It always carries a 15-day appeal deadline, not the two-month deadline for the main decision.
- Parties must scrutinize every decision carefully. Assess for hidden rulings on procedural requests, even if the court buries them in the reasoning and leaves them out of the final “order” section.
A first-instance court’s silence on the correct appeal deadline does not excuse a late appeal
✓
- The Munich decisions only mentioned the two-month deadline for the main case. They said nothing about the 15-day deadline for the evidence request.
- NST argued this silence confused it. The Court disagreed, because it had already clarified this exact point in an earlier ruling (AIM v. Supponor, April 2024).
- Lesson: once the Court of Appeal settles a procedural question, you cannot claim confusion over that same issue again. Always double-check deadlines yourself — don’t rely on the lower court to spell them out.
You cannot refile a rejected evidence request on appeal without genuinely new facts
✓
- NST asked for the same core evidence — Qualcomm’s source code — both at first instance and again on appeal. It only trimmed the request and adjusted access terms.
- The Court said this is still the same request. A party cannot dodge a missed appeal deadline by refiling the same demand under a different label.
- Practical point: if you lose an evidence request, appeal it in time. Don’t wait and hope to sneak a fresh version in later — the Court will treat it as the same request.
New legal arguments or updated case law never count as “new facts“
✓
- NST tried to justify its refiled request with better legal arguments and alleged shifts in the Court’s case law.
- The Court rejected this. New facts must be real, previously unavailable facts, not new arguments about existing facts.
- Businesses should note: courts draw a hard line between “new facts“ and “new arguments.“ Only genuinely new facts can reopen a closed procedural door.
Missing an appeal deadline rarely gets a second chance through “re-establishment of rights“
✓
- NST never even asked the Court to restore its lost appeal right under the relevant rule.
- The Court noted obiter dicta that NST likely would not have met the strict “due care“ standard required for such a request.
- Strategic reminder: courts set a high bar for excusing missed deadlines. Build strong internal deadline-tracking systems — don’t count on a late rescue from the court.
Division
Place division
UPC number
Place UPC number
Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings concerning requests for evidence production (R. 190 RoP)
Parties
Applicant/Appellant (Claimant/Counter-Defendant at first instance): Network System Technologies LLC (“NST”)
vs.
Respondents (Defendants/Counterclaimants at first instance): Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH (jointly “Qualcomm”)
Patent(s)
EP 1 552 399; EP 1 552 669; EP 1 875 683
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 59 UPCA, Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA, Art. 73(4) UPCA, R. 190 RoP, R. 220.1(c) RoP, R. 222.2 RoP, R. 224.1(b) RoP, R. 242.2(a) RoP, R. 320 RoP, R. 9.4 RoP, R. 351(e) RoP, R. 353 RoP
