UPC_CFI_54/2023

On-board power supply monitor and power control system

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageHamburg LDInfringementCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

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) EPC
Hinweis: 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
Beklagter
Hinweis: Court found no infringement of any claim including auxiliary requests 1a and 2; infringement action dismissed in full.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Tesla vehicles infringe EP 1612910 (on-board power supply monitor and power control system)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63 UPCA
Begründung: 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.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Patent may be partially revoked under Art. 65(3) UPCA such that independent claims surviving in an auxiliary request may be maintained if grounds for revocation do not extend to them Independent claims in a patent are not necessarily tied together; one independent claim may survive while another falls, provided they are not logically part of a closed claim set requiring each other Failure to use CMS workflow does not invalidate a submission if the deadline is still met, particularly in the early phase of UPC operations

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

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.