UPC CFI 54/2023
6. Juni 2023·EP1612910 · On-board power supply monitor and power control system
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter
- Florian Oliver Gunther Schmidt-Bogatzky
- Florian Schmidtbogatzky
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 22. Aug. 2023
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 26. Aug. 2024
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Sabine Klepsch | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Stefan Schilling | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Walter Schober | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Hergen Kapels | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Broadcom Group (52 Verfahren)·Tesla Group (25 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 4 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 629/2024·UPC CoA 631/2024·UPC APP 53238/2024·UPC APP 12793/2024
2 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Hamburg LD·2023
- 2024-08-26Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division dismissed Avago's infringement claim against Tesla for EP 1 612 910 B1 (power management system) as no infringement of any claim could be established, and on Tesla's counterclaim partially revoked the patent, maintaining only claim 1 in the form of auxiliary request 1 with claim 3 deleted.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- patent claim infringement assessment
- partial revocation counterclaim Art. 65(3) UPCA
- independent claims not building on each other
- 2023-12-05Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division issued a further procedural order setting deadlines for Avago Technologies to file its reply and response to the invalidity counterclaim, after additional submissions regarding the start date of the reply deadline, in the infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Deadline for reply to defence and invalidity counterclaim
- Start of deadline calculation
- 2023-11-28Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division issued a procedural order setting the deadline for Avago Technologies to file its reply to the statement of defence and its response to the invalidity counterclaim, taking into account the delayed receipt of the confidential defence version and aligning the two deadlines.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Deadline for reply to defence
- Deadline for response to invalidity counterclaim
- Confidential document access
- 2023-11-03Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division issued a final confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP in Avago v. Tesla, defining the scope of protection for trade secrets and the category of persons permitted to access confidential information.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Confidentiality order Rule 262A RoP
- Trade secrets Art. 58 UPCA
- Access restrictions
- 2023-10-04Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division issued a provisional order restricting access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP to the parties' legal representatives only, pending a final decision on the confidentiality application, in an infringement action by Avago Technologies against Tesla entities concerning EP 1 612 910.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Confidentiality of business secrets (Rule 262A RoP)
- Provisional access restriction
- 2023-08-22Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division addressed Tesla's request for a deadline extension to file its defence in Avago Technologies' infringement action, in circumstances where key personnel were on holiday and supplier coordination was required.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Deadline extension
- Defence filing deadline
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-01-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2024-12-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Zustimmung Rücknahmen | 2024-12-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Close workflow | 2024-12-11 | Öffentlich |
| Close workflow | 2024-11-19 | Öffentlich |
| Anonymisation | 2024-09-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| DecisionOutcome | 2024-08-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2024-08-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2024-08-26 | Öffentlich |
Avago Technologies sued Tesla entities for infringement of EP 1612910 B1 (an on-board power supply monitor and power control system patent) before the Hamburg Local Division. The court dismissed the infringement action in full, finding no infringement of any asserted claim. On Tesla's revocation counterclaim, the patent was partially revoked — maintained only as to claim 1 in the form of auxiliary request 1 with claim 3 deleted — resulting in Avago bearing 85% of costs.
EP 1612910 is partially invalid; claim 3 and claims beyond auxiliary request 1 scope should be revoked
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65(3) UPCA; Art. 138(3) EPCHinweis: Hamburg Local Division found patent partially invalid; maintained only claim 1 in auxiliary request 1 form (with claim 3 deleted); independent claims may separately survive if not logically dependent on revoked claims.
No infringement of EP 1612910 by Tesla vehicles' power management systems could be established
BeklagterHinweis: Court found no infringement of any claim including auxiliary requests 1a and 2; infringement action dismissed in full.
Tesla vehicles infringe EP 1612910 (on-board power supply monitor and power control system)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63 UPCABegründung: No infringement of claim 1 or any auxiliary claim could be established on the evidence; the specific overvoltage protection solution allegedly used in the attacked embodiment was not shown to be implemented.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The Hamburg Local Division construed claim 1 of EP 1612910 (a power control system with monitoring integrated circuit modules). On the counterclaim, the court maintained claim 1 in auxiliary request 1 form (with claim 3 deleted), indicating that the overvoltage protection element of the claim was a key differentiating feature.