UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Mar 21, 2024

UPC_CFI_132/2024

Intelligent interrupt distributor

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMannheim LDInfringementCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 746 967 dismissed; patent valid

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: 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) RoP

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Direct infringement of EP 2 746 967 by Texas Instruments' processors implementing DVFS

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Reason: 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 EPC

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Infringement assertion: where defendant disputes a feature with sufficient substantiation, claimant must submit specific facts about the accused embodimentIndirect infringement raised for the first time at oral hearing is inadmissible (R. 263.2(b) RoP)General common knowledge: the specific combination of features must itself be GCK, not merely each individual elementSkilled person must inevitably arrive at the claimed design when relying on GCK; inventive steps are not permissibleBoth infringement action and revocation counterclaim dismissed: each side bears own costs

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.