CoA, May 19, 2026, Order On Request For A Discretionary Review, UPC-CoA-67/2026

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure or any other objective of the discretionary review (CoA, UPC_CoA_489/2024, order of 6 September 2024, Motorola v. Ericsson, para. 4; UPC_CoA_805/2025, order of 1 September 2025, Centripetal v. Keysight, paras. 8 and 11)

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy, Transport, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Requirements for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP

2. Division

Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court

3. UPC number

UPC-CoA-67/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings; discretionary review

5. Parties

Applicant (Claimant in the main proceedings): Advanced Standard Communication LLC

Respondents (Defendants in the main proceedings):

XIAOMI Inc.
XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd.
XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V.
XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH,

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 016 464

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 220.3 RoP

Please click here to view the full report.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]