UPC CFI 132/2024
Mar 21, 2024·EP2746957 +1 more · Intelligent interrupt distributor
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringComputer technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Oct 9, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Peter Tochtermann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Dirk Böttcher | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Alima Zana | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Andrea Scilletta | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC (8 cases)·Texas Instruments Group (39 cases)
This dispute contains 6 other proceedings
UPC CFI 524/2024·CC 51398/2024·UPC APP 18490/2025·UPC APP 18494/2025·UPC APP 20197/2025 and 1 more
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Mannheim LD·2024
- 2025-10-09Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The Mannheim Local Division dismissed both the infringement action by Total Semiconductor LLC against Texas Instruments entities concerning EP 2 746 967 (DVFS processor) and the counterclaim for revocation, finding no infringement due to insufficiently substantiated assertions and the patent remaining valid.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Patent infringement (DVFS processor)
- Burden of substantiation for infringement
- Indirect infringement raised at oral hearing
- General common knowledge
- 2025-05-14
Summary: Procedural order in infringement action by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR against Texas Instruments entities. Decision on Claimant's request for a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP in response to Defendants' rejoinder: final decision partially postponed to the oral hearing; request otherwise rejected. The court found no new arguments by Defendants requiring a response beyond what was already permitted.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Admission of further written submissions (Rules 12.5, 36 RoP)
- New arguments in rejoinder
- Adaptive Voltage Scaling claim construction
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-01-14 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-01-14 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-01-14 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-14 | Not public |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-01-14 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-01-07 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-01-06 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-06 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-01-06 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2025-11-24 | Not public |
Total Semiconductor LLC's infringement action against Texas Instruments entities for infringement of EP 2 746 967 (DVFS processor patent) was dismissed by the Mannheim Local Division because Total Semiconductor failed to substantiate that the accused embodiments implemented Dynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling; the court also dismissed Texas Instruments' counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent valid, so each side bore its own costs for a combined case value of EUR 10,000,000.
Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 746 967 dismissed; patent valid
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCNote: When invoking general common knowledge for a subset of claim features, the specific combination must also be part of GCK; Defendants failed to show the skilled person would inevitably arrive at the claimed design without inventive steps.
Indirect infringement claim raised for the first time at oral hearing is inadmissible
RespondentLegal basis: R. 263.2(b) RoPNote: Court held that a defendant cannot regularly be expected to defend against an indirect infringement assertion raised for the first time at the oral hearing; granting leave is excluded in such circumstances.
Direct infringement of EP 2 746 967 by Texas Instruments' processors implementing DVFS
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCAReason: Claimant failed to submit specific facts demonstrating implementation of the disputed features in the attacked embodiments with the required degree of substantiation commensurate with Defendants' denial; the evidence showed at most that processors could be operated at different voltage levels statically chosen, not DVFS.
General common knowledge (GCK) supports inventive step challenge for claim feature subset
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCReason: Court held that when relying on GCK for a subset of claim features, it is not sufficient that individual elements are known; the specific combination as claimed must also be part of GCK.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The central disputed technical issue was whether the accused Texas Instruments processors implement Dynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling (DVFS) as required by EP 2 746 967, or only Dynamic Frequency Scaling (DFS) without dynamic voltage adjustment. The court found Claimant's submissions insufficiently substantiated: the evidence showed only that processors could operate at different statically-chosen voltage levels and could communicate with a PMIC, not that they dynamically adjust voltage during operation.