2026-07-02 - CoA - Transsion et al. v. Ericsson - UPC-COA-0000102/2026

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: [Note: this is one of three parallel appeals — UPC_CoA_100/2026, UPC_CoA_101/2026 and UPC_CoA_102/2026 — addressed by a single standing-judge order of 2 July 2026. This row covers UPC_CoA_101/2026 (node 183809); the same order is also indexed under nodes 183810 (UPC_CoA_100/2026) and 183808 (UPC_CoA_102/2026).] In appeals against The Hague Local Division's phased 'external-eyes-only' confidentiality regime under R. 262A and R. 262.2 RoP, the standing judge of the Court of Appeal addressed on his own initiative whether the challenge was properly an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP or a request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP. Applying Speed Care Mineral v Teleflex, he held that where the Court of First Instance fails to decide within the 15-day time limit despite a timely request for leave to appeal, leave is deemed to have been refused — and that once leave is refused, expressly or by expiry, it is no longer for the CFI to decide, even retroactively. The CFI's later grant of leave on 15 June 2026 therefore did not alter the position, because neither the UPC Agreement nor the Rules of Procedure confer on the CFI the power to grant leave after it should be regarded as refused. Rather than dismiss, the standing judge raised the possibility that the appellants' 10 June 2026 request for leave might itself be read as including a request for discretionary review should the leave request be inadmissible for expiry of the time limit, and invited the parties to comment within five calendar days. The point was never resolved: the parties settled and the appeals were withdrawn on 16 July 2026.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Aktenzeichen: UPC-COA-0000102/2026