Audi v Network System Technologies. (UPC_CoA_264. 266, 269, 272, 276 & 284/2024)
Decision date:
18 September 2024
Osborne Clarke summary
- This was an appeal by Audi relating to a decision from the Munich LD on Audi's separate preliminary objection (that the court lacked jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and that the opt-out had not been validly withdrawn) and anapplication under Rule 361 RoP (summary judgment where the action is manifestly bound to fail – Audi argued NST lacked standing to sue and its statement of claim lacked sufficient substantiation). The Munich LD rejected the preliminary objections in part (leaving the issue of the UK and Northern Ireland damages to the main proceedings) but the Rule 361 request was rejected in full.
- The Court of Appeal rejected Audi's appeal against the Munich LD's decision on its preliminary objections. The Court of Appeal held that the Munich LD was entitled to leave the UK and Northern Ireland preliminary objection point to be decided in the main proceedings (Rule 20.2 RoP) and Audi did not provide reasons why, in deciding as it did, the Munich LD overstepped the boundaries of its discretion. As for the opt-outs, the court concluded that these had been validly withdrawn.
- Audi's appeal relating to its Rule 361 RoP requests failed too. Both of Audi's grounds of appeal here essentially boiled down to its contention that NST's statement of claim had not been sufficiently argued or substantiated. The Court of Appeal expressly said: "[e]ven though the UPC procedure is a front-loaded system, it is not required that the claimant envisage every possible line of defence and include all arguments, facts and evidence in, and submits it with, the statement of claim and that nothing could ever be added thereafter…". NST's approach of including one detailed claim chart and infringement report, while claiming infringement by a number of other embodiments, did not result in the claims relating to the other embodiments manifestly lacking any foundation in law and therefore the matter did not fall within the scope of Rule 361 RoP.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.