2026-07-15 - CoA - Network System Technologies v. Qualcomm - UPC-COA-0000070/2026

- Regarding the payment of court fees under R. 220.1(a) RoP for a counterclaim for revocation, following the adoption of the amended Table of court fees, the current wording is to be understood as referring to the fee to be paid for filing a counterclaim for revocation in the first instance at the time of filing the appeal raised by 10%. - As a general principle, fees shall be paid in accordance with the value of the action as determined by the Court of First Instance. The parties are not entitled to unilaterally determine or amend the value of the action for the purpose of calculating the applicable court fees. Should a party consider that the value of the action determined by the Court of First Instance is incorrect, objections concerning the determination of the value of the action may be raised as part of the grounds of appeal. - If the value of the action determined by the CFI is not disputed as such, but there is reason, which is apparent on face value, to determine the court fees based on a lower value of the action on appeal than that set by the CFI for the first instance proceedings, this may be requested and the Court of Appeal may provisionally agree therewith. However, the Court of Appeal can and shall only finally decide on the value of the action on appeal after having heard the respondent, who may comment on that in the Statement of response. - If the Court of Appeal subsequently determines that the value of the action should be assessed differently, the court fees shall be recalculated accordingly and, where applicable, any overpaid amount shall be reimbursed or additional fees shall have to be paid by the appellant.

[Note: node 183803 is the UPC_CoA_69/2026 registry node of a single Court of Appeal fee order that also governs the parallel appeals UPC_CoA_68/2026, 70/2026, 71/2026 and 72/2026; the identical order is separately indexed under nodes 183804 (UPC_CoA_68/2026) and 183801 (UPC_CoA_71/2026). Classified per node. UPC_CoA_69/2026 is NST's infringement appeal (EP 1 552 669) on which NST, having underpaid on a self-assessed half value, was ordered to pay the EUR 17,500 outstanding within 14 days.] The Court of Appeal (Kalden, judge-rapporteur of panel 2), ruling on the payment of court fees under R. 370.5/370.6 and R. 220.1(a) RoP across five parallel Qualcomm/NST appeals, clarified how appeal court fees are calculated. For a counterclaim for revocation, the appeal fee is the fee payable for filing that counterclaim in the first instance at the time the appeal is filed (under the amended Table of court fees), raised by 10% — not the fee actually paid at first instance; Qualcomm's reimbursement request based on the lower figure was therefore dismissed. As a general principle, fees follow the value of the action as determined by the Court of First Instance, and parties may not unilaterally re-set that value to reduce their fees; a party contesting the value must do so in the grounds of appeal. Where a lower value on appeal is apparent on its face, the appellant may request a provisionally reduced fee, but the Court of Appeal decides the value finally only after hearing the respondent, with recalculation and reimbursement or top-up as appropriate. NST's unilateral halving of the value (on the ground that Samsung had exited as respondent) was rejected because the CFI had already set the value after Samsung's withdrawal; NST was ordered to pay the outstanding fees within 14 days on pain of inadmissibility under R. 229.4 RoP.