UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 515/2023

Jan 3, 2024·EP1552399 · INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSACTIONS

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Claim dismissed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Computer technology
Language
English
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 Pierluigi PerrottiLockedLocked

At the UPC: Network System Technologies LLC (77 cases)·Texas Instruments Group (39 cases)

Decisions
  • 2024-04-23

    Summary: Munich Local Division dismissed the applications by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc., and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH requesting the Court to order Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158 RoP. The Court found that the applications did not meet the legal standards for ordering such security.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158 RoP
    • Standards for ordering security for costs
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2025-11-26Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-03-11Not public
2025-03-11 Order - rectification2025-03-11Public
Receipt2025-03-10Not public
Application2025-03-07Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-27Not public
2025-02-27 - Order - Reimbursement of court fees2025-02-27Public
Receipt2025-02-25Not public
Application2025-02-24Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-01-22Not public
Plain-English summary

Volkswagen, Audi, Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland applied for security for costs of EUR 200,000 against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based patent assertion entity asserting EP 1 552 399 before the Munich Local Division. The court dismissed all three applications, holding that the defendants had provided only general allegations about enforcement difficulties with no concrete evidence of insolvency risk, and that ordering security based on US domicile alone would amount to unlawful discrimination.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • applications for security for costs against NST should be dismissed because defendants provided no concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties against a US entity

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158 RoP

    Note: The Munich LD held that mere domicile in a non-EU country cannot be a basis for security for costs (would constitute nationality-based discrimination), and defendants provided no evidence of actual insolvency risk or enforcement difficulties.

  • US courts routinely recognise and enforce foreign judgments including UPC decisions

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158 RoP

    Note: The court found no demonstrated difficulty with enforcing a cost order in the US against NST.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • NST as a US-based NPE should be ordered to provide EUR 200,000 security for costs

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158 RoP; Art. 47 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

    Reason: Defendants relied only on general allegations without concrete evidence of insolvency risk or enforcement difficulties; mere non-EU domicile cannot justify security orders as it would constitute unlawful a priori discrimination based on nationality of registered office.