UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 2258/2026

Jun 24, 2026·EP3743812 Unitary patent · APPLICATION RUNTIME DETERMINED DYNAMICAL ALLOCATION OF HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTE RESOURCES

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
Jun 30, 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.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Ingo RinkenLockedLocked
Judge Goda Ambrasaité-BalynienéLockedLocked

At the UPC: ParTec AG (15 cases)·Lenovo Group (15 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1815/2026

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

Decisions
  • 2026-06-30
    Provisional 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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Publication of order2026-07-24Not public
Publication2026-07-24Not public
Publication of order2026-07-23Not public
Case closed2026-07-02Not public
Order2026-06-30Not public
Order2026-06-30Public
Receipt2026-06-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-24Not public
Fee2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Other documents2026-06-24Not public
Other documents2026-06-24Not public
Other documents2026-06-24Not public
Other documents2026-06-24Not public
Other documents2026-06-24Not public
Other documents2026-06-24Not public
Other documents2026-06-24Not public
Other documents2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-06-24Not public
Application for provisional measures2026-06-24Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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 RoP

  • The 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 UPCA

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

  • 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 RoP

  • The value in dispute amounts to only EUR 500,000 because only one patent and one embodiment are at issue

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 370 RoP