UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 487/2023

Dec 27, 2023·EP2645714 SEP · Video decoding device, video decoding method, and program

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Settled)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Language
English
First decided
Oct 2, 2024
Last decision
Jan 17, 2025
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.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Daniel VossLockedLocked
Judge Georg WernerLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked

At the UPC: NEC Corporation (19 cases)·TCL Group (35 cases)

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

This dispute contains 10 other proceedings

UPC CFI 397/2024·UPC CFI 398/2024·UPC CFI 498/2023·UPC APP 2192/2025·UPC APP 2273/2025 and 5 more

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 715/2025·UPC CFI 717/2025·UPC CFI 499/2025·UPC CFI 501/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2023

Decisions
  • 2025-01-17
    Application RoP 265Public

    Summary: The Munich Local Division confirmed the withdrawal of NEC Corporation's patent infringement action against TCL entities concerning EP 2 645 714. The parties had reached a contractual agreement before closure of the written procedure. The court granted the withdrawal and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant. Each party bears its own costs; no cost decision was issued.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Withdrawal of action (R. 265 RoP)
    • Reimbursement of court fees (R. 370 RoP)
    • 60% fee reimbursement for pre-closure withdrawal
  • 2024-10-02
    Public

    Summary: The Munich Local Division admitted a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) as an intervener on the side of the claimant (NEC) in infringement proceedings against TCL entities, granting it limited access to the case file subject to existing confidentiality restrictions.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Admission of intervention by patent pool administrator (R. 313 RoP)
    • Legal interest of intervener
    • Confidentiality club access for intervener
    • Competition law (Art. 101 TFEU)
  • 2024-10-02
    Public

    Summary: The Munich Local Division ruled on an application to admit a third-party intervention by a patent pool administrator, holding that the administrator has a legal interest in the outcome of proceedings and may intervene. The order also addressed the intervener's access to confidential information in the proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Third-party intervention
    • Patent pool administrator
    • Legal interest in proceedings
    • Rule 313 RoP
    • Confidential information access
    • Art. 101 TFEU
Documents
Show all 1722 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2025-10-30Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-20Not public
Other document2025-10-20Not public
Receipt2025-10-20Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-15Not public
Further pleadings2025-10-15Not public
Receipt2025-10-15Not public
Communication2025-10-08Not public
Cover sheet2025-09-29Not public
Exhibit2025-09-29Not public
Coverage: Thin.Reasoning extracted with limited coverage — see decisions tab for full text.
Plain-English summary

NEC Corporation filed an infringement action against TCL entities at the Munich Local Division regarding EP 2 645 714 (a video decoding patent), with Access Advance LLC as intervener. The parties reached a contractual settlement before the closure of the written procedure, and NEC withdrew the action in January 2025. The court confirmed the withdrawal, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees to NEC (EUR 14,400), and recorded that each party bears its own costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

No accepted arguments captured.

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

No rejected arguments captured.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
withdrawal of infringement action permissible when parties reach contractual agreement before closure of written procedure under R. 265.1 RoP60% reimbursement of court fees on withdrawal before closure of written procedure under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoPcost agreement between parties taken into account under R. 265.2(c) RoP

Browse other cases on this principle.