2025-08-25 - LD Munich - Network System Technologies v. Qualcomm et al.

Rule 19.1 (a) RoP does not mean that the Defendant of an infringement action may raise any objection in the context of an application to opt out and the withdrawal of an opt-out in order to argue that the withdrawal is invalid and a previously declared opt-out is valid. The withdrawal of an opt-out is at least effective if the requirements of Rule 5.3 and 5.7 RoP are met (in the case of more than one applicant or patent proprietor also Rule 5.1 RoP), the withdrawal is entered in the register and the requirements of Rule 5.8 RoP are not met. If this is the case, the resulting effectiveness of the withdrawal of the opt-out is binding for the Court and the parties. In particular, where a UPC representative is acting in accordance with Rule 5.3 (b) (i) RoP, a written mandate, a power of attorney or any other power or representation is not a necessary condition for the effectiveness of the withdrawal of an opt-out and the lack of such power of representation cannot be invoked with a Preliminary objection.

Companion case to UPC_CFI_63/2024 (node 137481) with identical reasoning. JR Voß rejected Qualcomm's preliminary objection challenging the opt-out withdrawal's validity. The court applied the same holdings: R. 19.1(a) limits opt-out challenges to R. 5 formal requirements; UPC representative needs no written mandate under R. 5.3(b)(i); opt-out procedure is unilateral with R. 5A as exclusive remedy for proprietors.