2026-08-17 - CoA - Network System Technologies v. Qualcomm et al. - UPC-COA-0000069/2026

1) A decision on an application pursuant to Art. 59 UPCA / R. 190 RoP needs to be appealed within 15 days after service of the order pursuant to Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA and R. 224.1(b) RoP even if it is contained in a decision in the main proceedings in one document that is called ‘Decision’; the Court’s decision on a R.190 RoP application still takes the form of an order, to which R. 220.1(c) and R. 224.1(b) RoP apply. 2) An excusable error can, in exceptional circumstances, justify a derogation from the rule that the time period for lodging an appeal is a mandatory time limit that cannot be extended. A wrong indication of a time period applicable to an order referred to in R. 220.1(c) RoP is in itself insufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances, because a representative exercising all due care should have been aware that the applicable time period for lodging an appeal is 15 days after service of the order. 3) Leaving aside whether R. 242.2(a) RoP, stating that the Court of Appeal may exercise any power within the competence of the Court of First Instance, implies that a party may lodge an application pursuant to R. 190 RoP for the first time during appeal proceedings, such an application is held inadmissible under the circumstances of the case. 4) An application that is substantially the same in terms of the requested evidence to be produced as an application that was already filed and decided upon in substance at first instance, failing new facts justifying its refiling, is not a request which has not been submitted by a party during proceedings before the Court of First Instance that may, at the discretion of the Court of Appeal, under the conditions of R. 222.2 RoP, be allowed on appeal. Thus, R. 222.2 RoP does not apply to such a request and the only procedural remedy against its dismissal is lodging a (timely) appeal. 5) A refiled R. 190 RoP application, i.e. requesting substantially the same evidence to be produced, would only be admissible on appeal if justified by new facts that could not reasonably have been available during the first instance proceedings. That is because allowing a refiling of essentially the same – and dismissed – R. 190 RoP application on appeal that is not based on new facts would lead to a circumvention of the appeal mechanism set forth in the UPCA and Rules of Procedure and the strict time limits applicable thereto, which serve legal certainty of third parties and procedural efficiency. 6) R. 222.2 RoP would apply by analogy to an admissible refiled R.190 application, i.e. whose filing is justified by new facts.

The Court of Appeal held that a ruling on an application for the production of evidence under Art. 59 UPCA / R. 190 RoP is an order within R. 220.1(c) RoP and must be appealed within 15 days under Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA and R. 224.1(b) RoP, even where it is contained in the decision in the main proceedings and that document is called 'Decision'. It does not matter whether the judge-rapporteur or the panel ruled, or whether the ruling was issued separately; the omission of the rejection from the operative part contrary to R. 351(e) RoP is an obvious slip open to rectification under R. 353 RoP and does not deprive the ruling of its character as an order. Following AIM v Supponor, an excusable error can justify a derogation from that mandatory time limit only in exceptional circumstances, and now that the ambiguity in R. 220.1(c) RoP has been clarified, a wrong or missing indication of the appeal period is in itself insufficient. The Court further held that an application refiled on appeal seeking substantially the same evidence is not a request 'not submitted at first instance' within R. 222.2 RoP, so that route is unavailable and the only remedy against the first-instance dismissal is a timely appeal; such a refiling is admissible only if justified by new facts that could not reasonably have been available at first instance, and R. 222.2 RoP then applies by analogy. Both the appeals against the R. 190 dismissals and the R. 190 applications filed on appeal were rejected as inadmissible.