Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Other16

• Munich LD9 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Mannheim LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Milan LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Paris LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 2024-05-08UPC_APP_11857/2024Munich LDDismissedThe Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1552669, rejecting challenges to standing, admissibility of pre-2022 damages, and the sufficiency of the infringement read, while deferring jurisdiction objections relating to UK-territory claims to a later stage.
• 2024-05-08UPC_APP_11863/2024Munich LDDismissedThe Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1552399, rejecting challenges on substantially the same grounds as in the parallel proceedings concerning EP1552669.
• 2024-05-08UPC_APP_11845/2024Munich LDDismissedThe Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1875683, rejecting challenges on substantially the same grounds as in the parallel proceedings concerning EP1552669 and EP1552399.
• 2024-05-08UPC_APP_11850/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Local Division Munich resolved preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi AG, and Texas Instruments defendants in NST's infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683, rejecting jurisdiction and standing challenges and finding that a detailed infringement read on one example device is sufficient at the pleading stage to cover a list of accused devices.
• 2024-05-08UPC_APP_11854/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_513/2023, 8 May 2024) dismissing preliminary objections by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Texas Instruments entities in NST's infringement action for EP 1 552 669 B1. Substantially the same as the companion order in UPC_CFI_514/2023: opt-out withdrawal was valid; NST had standing to sue including for pre-assignment infringement.
• 2024-05-08UPC_APP_11795/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyMunich Local Division order (full panel, Zigann presiding) on preliminary objections by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc. and TI Deutschland GmbH, and on requests under R. 361 RoP, in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The R. 361 requests to declare the action manifestly inadmissible or unfounded were dismissed. The preliminary objections (R. 19 RoP) were partially dismissed with the remaining jurisdictional issue deferred to the main proceedings. Leave to appeal granted. Costs deferred to main proceedings.
• 2024-05-08UPC_APP_11791/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyMunich Local Division order (full panel, Pichlmaier as judge-rapporteur) on preliminary objections and R. 361 requests by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc. and TI Deutschland GmbH in a second infringement action by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683. Identical in substance to the parallel case (UPC_APP_12101/2024): R. 361 requests dismissed; preliminary objections partially dismissed with residual jurisdiction/assignment issues deferred to main proceedings. Leave to appeal granted. Costs deferred.
• 2024-05-08UPC_APP_11861/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyMunich Local Division dismissed preliminary objections (Rule 19 RoP) and requests to declare the action manifestly bound to fail (Rule 361 RoP) filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against Network System Technologies LLC's infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399. The court held that NST has standing to sue based on the patent assignments; infringement allegations need only be detailed for one exemplary device at this stage; the jurisdiction objection relating to UK/TI damages claims was deferred to the main proceedings; leave to appeal was granted.