UPC CFI 2258/2026
Jun 24, 2026·EP3743812 Unitary patent · APPLICATION RUNTIME DETERMINED DYNAMICAL ALLOCATION OF HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTE RESOURCES
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- ParTec AGOperating co.
Representatives- Iram Kamal-Frohwitter Intellectual Property Counselors
- Jan Gigerichsupporting-IPCGS Gigerich Sedlmaier
Respondents- Lenovo Global Technology Germany GmbHOperating co.
- Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbHOperating co.
- Lenovo Group LimitedOperating co.
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringComputer technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jun 30, 2026
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Berenice Thom | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ingo Rinken | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Goda Ambrasaité-Balyniené | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: ParTec AG (15 cases)·Lenovo Group (15 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
10 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CFI 3644/2026·UPC CoA 140/2026·UPC CFI 2469/2026·UPC CFI 2082/2026·UPC CFI 1970/2026 and 5 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2026
- 2026-06-30Provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Dusseldorf Local Division rejected ParTec's application for provisional measures against the Lenovo defendants concerning EP 3 743 812. The Court held that where the application rests on an allegedly ongoing, irreparable loss of market share, a detailed and substantiated account of the market situation before the accused product entered the market is required, and ParTec's allegations of harm were vague and unsubstantiated; the newly attacked embodiment was a non-infringing alternative on the claim construction of the Munich Local Division's merits decision, and the defendants' potential exclusion from the market outweighed the applicant's asserted harm, with the pending main proceedings the appropriate forum. The applicant bears the costs, leave to appeal was granted and the value in dispute was set at EUR 1,000,000.
Show the legal issues (5)
- provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA and R. 206, 209, 212 RoP
- necessity of provisional measures where main proceedings on the merits are pending
- substantiation of irreparable harm and loss of market share between direct competitors
- weighing of the parties' interests
- costs by analogy with R. 118.5 RoP and setting the value in dispute
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Publication of order | 2026-07-24 | Not public |
| Publication | 2026-07-24 | Not public |
| Publication of order | 2026-07-23 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-06-30 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-06-30 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-06-24 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-06-24 | Not public |
| Fee | 2026-06-24 | Not public |
| Exhibit Claimant | 2026-06-24 | Not public |
The potential harm to the defendants from immediate exclusion from the market outweighs the applicant's vague and unsubstantiated allegations of harm
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211.3 RoPThe newly attacked embodiment is a non-infringing alternative on the claim construction adopted in the Munich Local Division's decision on the merits
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCAThe main proceedings are the appropriate forum for a comprehensive examination of validity, infringement and quantification of damages
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA, R. 209 RoP
Absent provisional measures the applicant faces hardly reversible disadvantages, in particular erosion of its licensing programme and market position
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoPThe value in dispute amounts to only EUR 500,000 because only one patent and one embodiment are at issue
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 370 RoP