UPC CFI 180/2025

Mar 7, 2025·EP3743812 Unitary patent · APPLICATION RUNTIME DETERMINED DYNAMICAL ALLOCATION OF HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTE RESOURCES

Case details: Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties: Claimants
BF exaQC AGNPE
ParTec AGOperating co.
Representatives
Iram Kamal-Frohwitter Intellectual Property Counselors
Roman Sedlmaier-IPCGS Gigerich Sedlmaier
Jan Gigerich-IPCGS Gigerich Sedlmaier
Stefan Richtersupporting-Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB
David Molniasupporting-df-mp tech Molnia Ho PartG mbB
Alexandre Hoffmannsupporting-df-mp tech Molnia Ho PartG mbB
Rajvinder Jagdevsupporting-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Peter Fitzpatricksupporting-Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP
Respondents
NVIDIA CorporationOperating co.
NVIDIA GmbHOperating co.
Representatives
Johannes Heselberger-Bardehle Pagenberg
Christof Karl-Bardehle Pagenberg
Stefan Lieck-Bardehle Pagenberg
Philipp Bovenkamp-Bardehle Pagenberg
Sabrina Hütt-Bardehle Pagenberg
Henri Kirner-Bardehle Pagenberg
Division: Munich LD
Judges: Daniel Voss
András Kupecz
Georg Werner
Alain Dumont
Technology: Electrical engineering
Computer technology
Language: German
First decided: Mar 11, 2026

How this compares

The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.

	Infringement found	Median days to first decision
All UPC	53% (62/117)	124
Munich LD	Locked	Locked
Judge Daniel Voss	Locked	Locked
Judge András Kupecz	Locked	Locked
Judge Georg Werner	Locked	Locked
Judge Alain Dumont	Locked	Locked

At the UPC: BF exaQC AG (13 cases)·NVIDIA Corporation (11 cases)

Related cases

More cases: Munich LD·2025

Decisions

2026-03-11
infringement
Summary: I. Die Verletzungsklage wird abgewiesen. II. Die Parteien tragen die ihnen durch die Verletzungsklage und die Widerklage auf Nichtigerklärung entstandenen Kosten jeweils selbst. [reasons 183-184] Die Beklagten haben die Entscheidung ueber die Widerklage auf Nichtigerklaerung davon abhaengig gemacht, dass die Verletzungsklage im Uebrigen erfolgreich ist. Da Letzteres nicht der Fall ist, bedarf es keiner weiteren Entscheidung mehr ueber die Widerklage. ... ist ueber die Widerklage auf Nichtigerklaerung nicht mehr zu entscheiden.

Documents

Document title	Date	Public
Communication	2026-08-31	Not public
Other Documents	2026-08-31	Not public
Other Documents	2026-04-20	Not public
Receipt	2026-04-14	Not public
Cover sheet	2026-04-14	Not public
Application document Claimant	2026-04-14	Not public
Hearing recording reference document	2026-04-01	Not public
Decision	2026-03-19	Public
Case closed	2026-03-11	Not public
Decision	2026-03-11	Not public