UPC CFI 449/2024

Jul 30, 2024·EP1552669 · INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSACTIONS

Case details: Status
Case Closed (Patent revoked)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties: Claimants
Qualcomm IncorporatedOperating co.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.Operating co.
Qualcomm Germany GmbHOperating co.
Representatives
Johannes Heselberger-Bardehle Pagenberg
Respondents
Network System Technologies LLCNPE
Representatives
Thomas Gniadek-Hoffmann Eitle
Division: Munich LD
Judges: Daniel Voss
Pierluigi Perrotti
Georg Werner
Andrea Scilletta
Technology: Electrical engineering
Digital communication · Computer technology
Language: English
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.

	Patent revoked	Median days to first decision
All UPC	37% (34/91)	124
Munich LD	Locked	Locked
Judge Daniel Voss	Locked	Locked
Judge Pierluigi Perrotti	Locked	Locked
Judge Georg Werner	Locked	Locked
Judge Andrea Scilletta	Locked	Locked

Related cases

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions

2026-03-11
revocation counterclaim
Summary: 1. The European patent EP 1 552 669 is revoked with effect to the territories of France (FR) and Germany (DE). 2. The Application to amend the patent in suit is dismissed. 3. The Infringement action is dismissed.

Documents

Document title	Date	Public
Order	2026-04-14	Not public
Order	2026-04-14	Public
Receipt	2026-04-13	Not public
Cover sheet	2026-04-13	Not public
Application document Applicant	2026-04-13	Not public
Hearing recording reference document	2026-04-01	Not public
Decision	2026-03-16	Public
Case closed	2026-03-11	Not public
Decision	2026-03-11	Not public
Decision	2026-03-11	Not public

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Independent claim 1 (feature group 3 and feature 6) and the corresponding claims of all four auxiliary requests extend beyond the content of the application as filed
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, Art. 123(2) EPC, Art. 65(2) UPCA
Feature 6 requires a separate determination step for the location of the addressed module, distinct from determining which module is addressed under feature group 4/5
RespondentLegal basis: claim construction of claim 1, feature 6

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Feature 6 should be read merely as a conclusion following from feature group 4 (arranging the first and second pieces of information into a single address) rather than a separate determination step
ClaimantLegal basis: claim construction of claim 1, feature 6
Request for an order under Rule 190 RoP to compel production of the 'Qualcomm source code' and related technical documents, based on the Arteris NoC Chapter as evidence of infringement
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 59(1) UPCA, R.190.1 RoP