UPC CFI 450/2024

Jul 30, 2024·EP1875683 · INTEGRATED CIRCUIT WITH DATA COMMUNICATION NETWORK AND IC DESIGN METHOD

Case details: Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
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
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 Infringement action is dismissed. 2. The Counterclaim for revocation 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.

Claims 1 and 8 as amended during examination do not constitute an inadmissible intermediate generalisation; on a correct construction the complete data package must implicitly be transmitted within N clock cycles
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, Art. 123(2) EPC, Art. 65(2) UPCA
Claims 1 and 8 are novel over Bertozzi and inventive over Bertozzi combined with Nowatzyk (US 6,081,844)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC, Art. 56 EPC
Width converters and rate adapters in the accused Qualcomm NoC ICs are not M*N data storage elements that delay a whole data package by M*N clock cycles, so feature group 4 is not realised, literally or by equivalence
RespondentLegal basis: claim construction of claim 1 feature group 4 and claim 8; doctrine of equivalence

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

The amendment of claims 1 and 8 during examination was an inadmissible intermediate generalisation of what was described in the application as filed
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, Art. 123(2) EPC
Claims 1 and 8 lack novelty over Bertozzi and lack an inventive step over Bertozzi combined with Nowatzyk
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 54 EPC, Art. 56 EPC
The accused Qualcomm NoC ICs, built on Arteris-derived technology, infringe claims 1 and 8 literally or, in the alternative, by equivalence
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; claim 1 and claim 8 features