UPC CoA, 19 May 2026 : Pending a request for discretionary review, the standing judge may decide an application for suspensive effect,
14-07-2026 Print this page
Request for discretionary review and application for suspensive effect of costs order rejected without hearing defendant’s comments. (Article 74 UPCA, Article 69 UPCA, Rule 158 RoP, Rule 220 RoP, Rule 223 RoP).
Costs order not manifestly erroneous - applicant failed to argue, let alone demonstrate that the alleged errors are manifest.
The fact that the defendent has submitted a licence offer to the applicant and has provided a bank guarantee (FRAND Security) for payments under the offered licence does not imply that the Munich Local Division’s findings on the risk of cost recovery are manifestly erroneous.
Defendant’s request for extension of time limit for filing further comments dismissed (Rule 9 RoP)
Defendant will not be disadvantaged by not being heard, since the request for discretionary review and the application for suspensive effect will be rejected.
Application for suspensive effect rejected by standing judge – devoid of purpose. (Article 74 UPCA, Rule 220.4 RoP, Rule 223 RoP).
An application for suspensive effect shall be decided by the Court of Appeal pursuant to rule 223 RoP. Under this rule, pending a request for discretionary review, the standing judge may decide an application for suspensive effect, since, at that stage of the appeal proceedings, the case is assigned to the standing judge.
