UPC CFI 451/2024

Jul 30, 2024·EP1552399 · INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSACTIONS

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
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 Infringement action is dismissed. 2. The Counterclaim for revocation is dismissed.

Documents

Document title	Date	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
Final Order	2026-03-11	Not public
Decision	2026-03-11	Not public
Order	2026-03-10	Not public
Order	2026-03-10	Public
Order	2026-02-10	Not public
Order	2026-02-10	Public

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

The prior art references 'Goossens' and 'Rijpkema' (and related documents 'Goossens 2', 'Rijpkema 2', 'Drake') do not disclose or render obvious the claimed connection-oriented communication-manager/resource-manager architecture of claim 1; the patent is novel (Art. 54 EPC) and involves an inventive step (Art. 56 EPC).
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPC; the Court examined 'Goossens' and 'Rijpkema' as realistic starting points for inventive step and found the claimed teaching not obvious over them (paras 179-265)
The accused Qualcomm NoC ICs, built on Arteris NoC technology, do not establish a 'connection' with a communication manager and resource manager as required by claim 1; the Arteris NoC Chapter relied on by the Claimant does not originate from or describe the Defendants' actual chip design.
RespondentLegal basis: claim construction of features 2-6 ('connection', 'communication manager', 'resource manager'); paras 266-308

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

The German Federal Patent Court's decision revoking the German part of the patent-in-suit should lead the UPC to stay proceedings, or should be treated as prejudicial to validity.
RespondentLegal basis: the UPC held it has its own competence to decide validity and was independently convinced of the patent's validity; the national decision was not yet final (paras 264-265)
The Defendants should be ordered under Art. 59(1) UPCA / R.190 RoP to produce the 'Qualcomm source code' and related technical documents to prove infringement.
ClaimantLegal basis: R.190 RoP requires reasonably available and plausible evidence already presented before an order to produce further evidence can issue; the Claimant's case rested only on the (disputed, non-Defendant-authored) Arteris NoC Chapter, which the Court found did not plausibly show infringement (paras 309-327)