UPC CFI 63/2024
4. März 2024·EP1552669 · INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSACTIONS
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Unternehmen
- Samsung Semiconductor Europe GmbHUnternehmen
- Qualcomm IncorporatedUnternehmen
- Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.Unternehmen
- Qualcomm Germany GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Johannes Heselberger-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Denise Benz-A&O Shearman
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication · Computer technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 11. März 2026
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Daniel Voss | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Pierluigi Perrotti | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Georg Werner | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Andrea Scilletta | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Network System Technologies LLC (77 Verfahren)·Samsung Group (57 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 13 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 68/2026·UPC CoA 69/2026·UPC CoA 70/2026·UPC CoA 71/2026·UPC CoA 72/2026 und 8 weitere
22 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CoA 265/2024·UPC CoA 217/2024·UPC CoA 218/2024·UPC CoA 219/2024·UPC CoA 220/2024 und 17 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2026-03-11Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Court dismissed the Infringement action concerning EP 1 552 669, holding both that the patent-in-suit is invalid (per the companion Counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_449/2024, revoked in its entirety for inadmissible added matter) and, independently, that Qualcomm's accused Arteris-based Network-on-Chip integrated circuits do not realise claim 1's 'connection' feature. In the same 61-page ruling the Court revoked EP 1 552 669 with effect for France and Germany and rejected the Claimant's attempt to save the patent through four auxiliary requests, each found to suffer from the same added-matter defect.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- inadmissible extension of subject-matter / added matter affecting independent claims 1 and 5 and all four auxiliary requests (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 65(2) UPCA)
- claim construction of 'connection', 'communication manager' and 'resource manager'
- R.190 RoP application to produce evidence (source code) - plausibility threshold
- geographic scope of a UPC revocation order (France and Germany)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Anordnung | 2026-04-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-04-14 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-04-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-04-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Applicant | 2026-04-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Hearing recording reference document | 2026-04-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Decision | 2026-03-16 | Öffentlich |
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-03-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2026-03-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Decision | 2026-03-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
Independent claim 1 (and consequently independent method claim 5) as granted contains added subject-matter extending beyond the application as filed, because feature group 3 ('at least one network interface means ... coupled between one of the modules and the network [on chip]') combined with feature 6 is not disclosed in the application as filed; none of the four auxiliary requests cures the defect because each retains the same offending feature combination in its independent claims.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 65(2) UPCA (inadmissible extension); paras 156-179The accused Qualcomm NoC ICs, built on Arteris NoC technology, do not establish a 'connection' with a communication manager and resource manager as required by claim 1.
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: claim construction of features 2-6, mirroring the parallel EP1552399 ruling's non-infringement analysis; para 181
The patent should be maintained, at least in the form of one of the four auxiliary requests, because independent claim 5 (or claim 4 in the later auxiliary requests) does not suffer from the alleged extension.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: the Court found feature group 3 and feature 6 present in every auxiliary request's independent claims, so all four requests suffer from the same added-matter defect (paras 177-179)The Defendants should be ordered under Art. 59(1) UPCA / R.190 RoP to produce further technical documents/source code to prove infringement.
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.190 RoP plausibility threshold not met, mirroring the parallel ruling's evidence-production reasoning